PressEthic

Unlike many newspapers today, who are reporting favorably about the Iraq Study Group, the New York Post has a picture of the two chairman of the Iraq Study Group on the cover of the paper with their heads plastered atop pictures of chimpanzees. The caption reads, "Surrender Monkeys: Iraq Panel Urges U.S. to Give Up." The article is dripping with bias. Sure, I know it's the New York Post and we can't expect anything from them in terms of respectable hard news, but this is an all-time low. The article extensively quotes John McCain, who is strongly opposed to the recommendations by the panel, and quotes no one who is in favor or even supportive of the study's work or recommendations. The only concession the article makes is that "Many in Congress have praised the group's report, which was eight months in the making. But..."

In the NY Daily News' story, another daily tabloid-esque local newspaper, there were almost no quotes criticizing the report. In my opinion, that's probably the way to go- the news story is what the actual report says. We know it's credible, and our government and its citizens have been waiting for the content of this report to come out with baited breath. The news is what is in the report, not what some senators have to say about specific parts of the report's recommendations. Relevant quotations would be the White House commentary, which is in both articles (Tony Snow's PR spin on how the President is handling the release of the report and what he thinks of the recommendations), as well as perhaps a quote from someone about whether or not the President will be following the report's recommendations. It shouldn't be a forum for McCain to air his personal views on the content of the report, as well as the war itself. And nowhere in the Daily News article is the "surrender" of the United States mentioned. Has the Post gone too far? In this case I would say yes.