As usual, I think the pure ideologues of the left and right are both full of it. Yes, it's true that the Fox News has gone totally overboard in their coverage of this war, leaping over the line into pure advoacy and making their bald-faced lie of a slogan (Fair and Balanced!) even more meaningless by the minute- and even more sadly, their ratings are likely to skyrocket since what their audience wants is unapologetic American boosterism. And CNN appears generally clueless in most phases of their coverage, whether its the smarmier-than-ever Aaron Brown, the vile, Jew-baiting manbeast Christiane Amanpour, or Wolf Blitzer, who last Friday announced an explosion in Kuwait City, and then spent 15 minutes on the air reporting absolutely no information on who or what had caused it. But while Western reporters in Iraq are restricted (rightly) by their inability to expose future battle plans, to argue that the 400-some "embedded" reporters, who are traveling with military units around the clock, are given "no access" is nothing short of ridiculous. And don't forget, before Arnett "came out of the closet" as someone who was proud of Iraq's tough resistance, his name was frequently tossed around as one of those reporters who weren't tough enough on the US.

That said, the right-wing prejudice that anyone the slightest bit critical of the war is a vile hater of the United States of America has expanded to include anyone who second-guesses any aspect of the war plan or even reports any type of bad news. The New York Post Saturday accused the Times of wishing for America to lose the war just because they reported that Iraqi resistance has been tougher than was expected. Um, isn't that what happened? Are we supposed to think the American people are too childish to be able to handle bad news? As a journalist myself and a supporter of both the US and the war, I feel strongly that truth should be any reporter's first pursuit, even if it results in bad news that Donald Rumsfeld may not want us to hear.

I don't doubt that there are those in America who really do hope the United States loses the war (like hopefully soon-to-be-ex Columbia professor Nicolas De Genova, who said last week that he hopes the war results in "a million Mogadishus.") And Arnett's comments certainly showed that he's unworthy of being the only Western reporter in Baghdad. But let's not throw the whole mainstream media in with them. Reporting a war is a tough job, and it's wrong to let ideological blinders be the chief determinant of what is or isn't good reporting.