On the contrary, the media has a responsibility to report the truest nature of the issue at hand. Any war results in hardship for soldiers on both sides of the field. When atrocities are committed, even by your own countrymen, censoring these images violates the essence of your journalistic integrity. It seems, therefore, you would prefer the types of newscasts allowed in Communist countries, where only those events that are politically expedient to the government are allowed to be broadcast. Showing the American people - or any people - your sanitized, measured, rah-rah version of things simply to increase public approval only serves to undermine the 1st amendment and destroy our fundamental right to formulate an informed opinion on the policies of our government.
Newscasters are human beings, not mindless cyborgs, and as such they will no doubt have emotional reactions to the site of such terrible carnage. It seems you would like them to strike every trace of emotion from their constitutions while reporting the conditions in Iraq; however, I doubt you could made the same argument about the myriad of newscasters who got chocked up on the morning of September 11th.
No matter which sound bites are chosen, they will have been "selected" by someone. No matter what footage is broadcast, it is going to be footage of a combat zone. When American leaders act in ways that are abhorrent, it is not the responsibility of the media to make them look majestic. It strikes me that your problem is not with the so-called accuracies of reporting, but that that reporting conflicts with your personally held opinions. You are therefore accusing the news media of everything from inappropriate head-tilting to baiting congressional leaders solely to reinforce your feelings on the current political situation, all without any basis of fact or integrity.
