Some examples are provided by the folks over at Power Line:
CBS's attack on Bush is remarkable. The network essentially called the President a liar. Here are some of CBS's key statements; let's take them one by one:
President Bush appealed today for more time for his Iraq strategy to work, but this time with a new rationale. *** President Bush's rationale is clearly shifting, from policing sectarian violence to targeting al Qaeda.
As the White House pointed out today, the President has talked about the threat of al Qaeda in Iraq in more than 40 speeches and other public appearances this year. It's interesting, too, that CBS thinks the old rationale was "policing sectarian violence." I'd be interested to see a single instance where President Bush has said that our mission in Iraq is "policing sectarian violence." CBS continued:
The President linked al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq directly to Osama bin Laden...
Bush: Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil.
But this is a clear contradiction of the January speech setting limits on U.S. involvement.
First, what Bush said is obviously correct. The leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have indeed sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. CBS doesn't directly deny this fact, but claims instead that it somehow contradicts Bush's speech on January 10. CBS next shows a clip from that speech, in which Bush says:
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister, and Iraq's other leaders, that America's commitment is not open-ended.
How on earth are these two statements in conflict? Bush said in January that our commitment to Iraq is not open-ended. He said yesterday that the leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And CBS calls this a "clear contradiction?" This can only have left viewers scratching their heads.
When, oh when will we see the federal judiciary start to force news organizations to be a little more careful in lying to the public? There are laws to prevent this kind of thing, and esecially in cases where the "news" organizationss are clearly lying to the public. Why can't they be used. A few hefty fines and (for the leakers at the New York Times, some hard time in jail, might convince these enemies of the American people that they would be better off being less overt in their antagonism towards an elected President.
CBS, CNN and the other members of the Old Media have made it their business to destroy this PResident and his Administration from the moment that they tried to throw the 2000 election to Al Gore. They have never been fair, nor have they made any real attemtp to report the actual news- they have instead reported their own slant, becoming bolder as it becomes clear that for some reason Republicans fear the media. If this had been the Clintons, Janet Reno and the Justice Department would have undoubtedly been on the case by now- recall the vicious attacks promulgated on anyone who dared to criticize the Clintons.
In any event, it becoming clearer and clearer that the mainstream media need to have their teeth pulled, and the only way we can do that is by turning off our televisions and closing forever the pages of these tired propagandists. Time to let network news and the liberal Press go the way of the dodo bird- into rightly-earned obscurity and poverty. Faster, please...
Hat tip to Power Line.