What Media Bias? (part n, where n is large)

Arthur Chrenkoff has a pair of duelling lists: # of media stories that paint Iraq negatively, and # that paint it neutrally or positively.

Can you guess which list is bigger?

This raises a point that I seldom hear made: When people argued, and continue to argue, that the liberation and democratization of Iraq will make the world and the United States safer, they don't actually mean during the fight, but rather if/when the fight is won.

Declaring war on the Axis powers in WWII did not make the U.S. safer in the short run. On the contrary, it made us less safe. More people spent more time trying to kill us. While allied soldiers were fighting and dying, while Londoners were being blitzed, they were not safer.

They got safer after they won.

It is too soon to tell, for sure, whether or not the decision to go into Iraq will result in a safer world, largely because it isn't clear whether or not the democratization of Iraq will successfully take root.

If it does take root, it will surely have a salutary long-term effect on world peace.

It would be nice if more people in the media could wrap their heads around this point.