Scoop Jackson should be rolling over in his grave

First, no mention of the military's ranking in the use of hazardous materials. Second, no mention of the programs the military has in place. I remember long nights at the motor pool and in the field, for relatively small spills.

What really got to me though was that the reporter felt it was vital to the story to say that Bush has done absolutely nothing about this issue. There was little concern about the environment, and every point made to discredit the President. She closed by thanking the specialist being interviewed, and said "obviously this is a HUGE problem!"

Since when does reporting the news require any such emphasis? I sat bewildered, recognizing that this entire story was nothing more than an election year jab. I then changed the channel from Headline News, forever.

Back in January of 2001, I was attending a military school (ANCOC) at Fort Carson, CO. This is a course that is run on weekends for National Guard and Reserve personnel (I'm National Guard, with about 12 years of Active Duty, as well, and currently serving in Kuwait).

Anyway, at the end of this class, the state Adjutant General came to speak to us, to tell us about some of the changes that were going to be made in the military education and promotion systems. All of the students present were noncommissioned officers (i.e., sergeants) with anywhere from 3 to 20 years of service.

So the general started off by saying "I just returned from Washington DC, where I watched George W. Bush get sworn in as our 43rd president..." and before he could finish, the entire room burst into spontaneous applause.

Martin

Nope, two stories is not acceptable and is not the same as impartial, factual reporting of the entire survey in one as it should be reported. It only renders both stories incomplete, inaccurate and distorted. Covering only part of a story in this manner is just not being factual.
If doing two stories, they should both present all aspects and not have one focused on negatives and one positives for it is too easy to discard one or the other.

We the People are becoming so weary of the MSM manipulating the so-called news! Pravda was more honest!

So I then looked at the AP article. No doubt, that was taking the downside. Took a look around and found the 2nd article on yahoo, and that article was all about the Pro-Bush side.

I didn't see the report on CNN. For all I know, CNN may have run another story covering the first part.

Regardless, the Freeper post has the bullet "3. The link to "part 1" is buried in the article, and doesn't even use the headline of part 1 "Poll: Military trusts Bush over Kerry""

Now who's spinning? When did the third sentence become the buried text? When I read it, I expected it to be at the end of the article, or in a sidebar.

It goes to show the spin on the survey begins with the survey itself when you get get at the questions and the breakouts.