context, context, context

One of my complaints about the MSM is not just "if it bleeds it leads" but the lack of context.

Any story that says Syria plans to attack Israel over the Golan Heights needs to note the context: , as this anti Israel Wikipedia article admits:"in addition to sponsoring attacks against Israel (often through Jordanian territory, much to King Hussein's chagrin), Syria also began shelling Israeli civilian communities in north-eastern Galilee, from positions on the Golan Heights,..."

Also missing: That the war in Lebanon was by Syria/Iran's proxies, and since Israel didn't wipe out their bunker system, these two countries feel they have the military advantage. John Kagan wrote an article in the UKTelegraph last week discussing why there will be another war, with Lebanon in the middle as usual.
James Q Wilson, not a right wing shill but an eminent thinker, also notes the press's emphasis on flashy and negative stories.

It is sad, but from overseas there are no "international" news networks that tell America's side well...we get CNNInt ("balance" by british reporters who specialize at smirking at good US News) BBC, Korea, DW and Russian news. No Fox here. Then people wonder about the anti American polls. The election on these networks is usually spun as American rejection of Bush and Iraq, ignoring the fact that local issues usually effect congressional races...yet, asTHIS editorial points out, the impending Democratic win doesn't bode well for the future either.


pajamasmediawill have election coverage.