Kevin Gowen wrote:
> Michael Cash wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:00:05 GMT, "necoandjeff" <spam@schrepfer.com>
>> brought down from the Mount tablets inscribed:
>>
>>
>>> "Michael Cash" <mikecash@buggerallspammers.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3ahol0hrkcrstu5s5lcinaa2s5q5fns4mt@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> On 30 Sep 2004 09:32:28 -0700, "John W." <worthj1970@yahoo.com>
>>>> brought down from the Mount tablets inscribed:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Michael Cash wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The AP radio news, in characteristic unbiased fashion, informed me
>>>>>> this evening that in the debates Kerry will call Bush to account for
>>>>>> "the mess in Iraq".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just out of curiosity, do you think it's not a mess and think we were
>>>>> absolutely right for going there and taking our eyes completely off 
>>>>> the
>>>>> ball?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have said before that I think it was perfectly justified, though
>>>> that doesn't mean it was a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> My point was not so much as with whether it is or is not a mess. My
>>>> point was that using a phrase like "the mess in Iraq" is
>>>> editorializing, not reporting. At least not in the context in which it
>>>> was used in that particular news broadcast. "The situation in Iraq"
>>>> would have been more appropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty soon you'll be demanding that the newspapers say "Nanking 
>>> incident"
>>> instead of "Nanking massacre..."
> 
> 
> Or call Islamofascists who shoot children in the back "insurgents" or 
> militants. Actually, the "news" services such as Reuters already do that.
> 

Suddenly I have an image of a little naked Vietnamese girl running away 
from napalm.