Just saw a bit on CNN where they talked about propaganda, and had a spokesman from Al-Jazeera facing off with David Gergen. Paula Zahn, who conducted the interview, was on the face of things trying to determine whether either side was engaging in propaganda and using “loaded words.” The charge against Al-Jazeera was that it used the terms “invaders” and “martyrs” in its reporting, and was that inappropriate. The spokesman defended Al-Jazeera, noting that it sometimes used the term “invading forces,” but did not refer to Iraqi casualties as “martyrs.” Gergen was at least honest enough to note that American news outlets used words like “liberaters” and “Iraqi Freedom,” examples of just a few of the heavily jingoistic terms bandied about casually on a regular basis by American broadcasters. Of course, Gergen was mostly critical of Al Jazeera and of course, Gergen was given the most on-air time, while Zahn overtalked and interrupted the Al-Jazeera spokesman several times.

Now, I am hardly on the Iraqi side, but “invading forces” is not what I would call “a loaded term,” as Gergen put it. I have not watched Al-Jazeera, so I don’t know all the language they use, but I cannot imagine the U.S. reporting to be much more propagandistic and full of loaded words as it is.

Call me nuts, but I thought that the great American tradition of journalism was supposed to be that the press would present unbiased facts so that the American people could make rational, objective decisions based upon that information. You bias the news, you limit the ability of the people to come to a balanced decision. So even in times of national strife–hell, especially in times of national strife, there should be no bias. And yet we see tremendous bias.

Chalk it up as item #374 in the list of reasons not to trust what you hear on the news…