Last night I brought my readers the latest Rasmussen poll, showing that the majority of American know there is a liberal media bias.
Today I see that the New York Times proves Rasmussen's point by publishing the Iraqi PM's words, but only half of them, yet the LA Times gives us the other half of them in their report.
NYT:
BAGHDAD, July 14 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki declared Saturday that Iraqi forces could secure the country on their own “any time” American troops decided to withdraw, his first response to the White House report this week that found his government falling well short of many political reforms and military goals sought by Congress.
Now for the full quote which the NYT deliberately didn't show their readers, but LA Times did:
BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri Maliki predicted Saturday that his government forces would be prepared to take over security functions if the American military withdrew from Iraq, expressing a confident attitude at a time of U.S. domestic pressure on the Bush administration for a troop withdrawal.
"We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want," he told a news conference in Baghdad.
His words stood in sharp contrast to those of Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, who told reporters last week that an early U.S. withdrawal could cause Iraq to splinter. Maliki has lobbied for greater control of Iraq's security.
The prime minister defended his record after the Bush administration issued a report last week that concluded that Iraqi leaders had failed to make much headway in resolving the political issues that would lead to national reconciliation and an effective democracy.
The report said Iraq's security forces were at times subject to political interference and infiltration by Shiite Muslim militias. On Friday, after a shootout that left six officers dead, American forces captured a police lieutenant accused of belonging to a militia.
Maliki, a Shiite, put on a brave face in the wake of the rising demand in the U.S. among Democratic and Republican legislators for withdrawal from Iraq.
He pleaded for time, pledging to achieve the passage of legislation that Washington has demanded as a condition of its continuing support, including an oil revenue sharing law, a revised constitution and the easing of government work restrictions for former supporters of President Saddam Hussein, who was captured, tried and executed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Maliki also said that Iraqi security forces could use more training from U.S.-led forces and needed more weaponry.
The LA Times is definitely not a conservative media source, yet they, at least didn't try to hide the full context of Maliki's words from the American people, but the NYT deliberately did.
Why?
More importantly, why does no one bother to ask them why they consistently refuse to tell the whole truth and constantly only tell parts of the truth?
Better yet, some liberal blogs are quoting the NYT piece without mention of the LA Times more accurate account, thereby passing along the same half truths that the NYT does, once again, proving what we have said time and time again about them.
They, nor their readers, care if they are lied to or if the truth is distorted, as long as it matches their own political agenda.
Is this media bias, media lies or simply bad reporting by journalists?
You decide.