Stardate 20040524.1747

(On Screen): Media bias? What media bias? The majority of those involved in news reporting are clearheaded moderates. (Just ask them.) It's the rest of us who are extremists.

In a story recently about the ongoing diplomatic stalemate with North Korea, Reuters reported:

The United States has rejected a North Korean push for a resumption of a nuclear power project in negotiations to dismantle its suspected nuclear arms programs, officials said on Wednesday.

In talks last week, the reclusive communist state offered to freeze its own nuclear activities in exchange for a U.S.-led consortium restarting construction of two light-water reactors, the officials said.

"We did not, I would say, welcome or entertain in any way that idea," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. "As a matter of policy ... we do not see a future for the light-water reactor project."

The United States, which suspects North Korea has built nuclear weapons, has insisted it will not discuss any concessions unless the energy-starved country commits to completely dismantling its nuclear programs.

The rejection underlined how far the United States remains from resolving the nuclear crisis despite several face-to-face negotiations with a country President Bush has bracketed in an "axis of evil" with prewar Iraq and Iran.

Hold on a minute, pardner! Why is it the US which is "far" from resolving the crisis? The clear implication here is that it the unreasonable demands being made by the US, and American unwillingness to compromise, which are the reason no agreement has been reached.

Which is utter baloney.

Here's another example. The AP posts a news article panning Bush's major speech today, before the speech actually is delivered.

President Bush sought to reassure Americans Monday night that he had a plan to pull Iraq out of the violence and chaos that have marked the year since he declared an end to major combat.

In a prime-time address to the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., Bush was hoping to show the nation hope amid rising body counts on both sides. He wanted to demonstrate momentum toward the scheduled shift of political power to Iraqis in five weeks and efforts to draw more countries in to help the United States combat the Iraqi insurgency and rebuild the country.

Earlier in the day, the United States and Britain presented a new U.N. resolution that would transfer "governing authority" in Iraq to a sovereign interim government by June 30 and authorize a multinational force to maintain peace with Iraqi consent.

Meanwhile, a roadside bomb in Baghdad destroyed a civilian car with armor plating near an entrance to the headquarters of the U.S.-led coalition, killing two Britons and injuring two other people.

Why is that last being included in this article? What's that got to do with the subject of this article? It's supposed to be about Bush's speech, isn't it?

No, this article is about why Bush's speech will fail to "reassure Americans", at least if the AP has anything to say about it.

The remainder of the article alternates between descriptions of the points Bush is anticipated to make in the speech, and citations which hope to imply that his points will be wrong/stupid/misguided.

The article proceeds with a quote from the White House about how the speech coincides with a critical stage in Iraq. In response, the AP tries to imply that the speech is actually motivated by the presidential campaign, which it also implies that Bush is losing.

It refers to the new UN resolution introduced today by the US and UK, mentioning that it includes a request that other nations send troops. But the Dominican Republic pulled its troops out of Iraq, didn't it?

Bush will talk about the power transition in Iraq and how to continue working to eliminate security threats and continue to repair the "shattered infrastructure". [Since "shattering" is usually a sudden event, the implication is that it was shattered by our invasion. In fact, most of the reason it is ruined was decades of incompetent Baathist management.]

Of course, let's keep in mind that lots of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians have died since we invaded.

Bush will deliver his speech at the Army War College. Of course, there's increasingly vocal opposition to the war from at least some current or retired military officers, so maybe this won't actually be a friendly audience. Besides which, it's located in Pennsylvania, which Bush didn't carry in the 2000 election. Obviously the most important reason for giving the speech there is as part of a process of trying to win that state this year.

So obviously everything Bush will say will be stupid/wrong; it's all motivated by sordid political self-interest anyway. You citizens don't need to watch it;