Joining the bias and inflammatory Bush bashing: Newsweek

Gotta love on of their latest headlines

It looks like Newsweek may be joining the Bush bashing party, in cooperation with their friends at MSNBC.

Why do I sayeth this?

Check out the headline at the linked article below. Originally I noticed this article while browsing the MSN "home page", with similarly inflammatory Bush-bashing code words.

As always (when sourcing outside information and excerpted from same), headline is linked.

Children of the Fallen

Over 1,000 American kids have lost a parent in the Iraq war.

Who they are, and how they're coping

Newsweek

This story was written by Jerry Adler with reporting from Debra Rosenberg, T. Trent Gegax, Pat Wingert, Daren Briscoe, Hilary Shenfeld, Kiyoshi Martinez, Dirk Johnson, Jamie Reno and Andrew Horesh

March 21 issue - They were prepared to die, even the truck drivers and supply clerks; any American who sets foot in Iraq must be. They made out wills, as the military requires, and left behind letters and videos for their families. The families in turn prepared for the day when they might open the door to find a chaplain on the other side. In military families the notion of duty is not confined to the battlefield. On the morning that 14-year-old Rohan Osbourne learned that his mother, Pamela, had been killed in a mortar attack on her Army base, his father dropped him off as usual at Robert M. Shoemaker High School, where three quarters of the students are the children of soldiers from nearby Fort Hood, Texas. "I might not get a lot of work done today, ma'am," Rohan politely explained to his teacher. "My mommy died yesterday in Iraq."
War notoriously robs parents of their sons, but it also steals husbands and fathers, and increasingly wives and mothers. The Pentagon doesn't keep these statistics, but using figures compiled by the Scripps-Howard News Service and other sources, NEWSWEEK has calculated that as of last week 1,043 American children had lost a parent in Iraq. To put it another way, nearly two years after the invasion on March 19, 2003, among the 1,508 American troops who have died as of March 11 were an estimated 450 fathers, and 7 mothers. A wartime death presents unique hardships for children. It occurs in a far-off country, often to a parent who left home months earlier; young children may find it hard to grasp the finality of the event. Offsetting that is the impressive panoply and ritual of a military funeral, and the consoling knowledge that the sacrifice was in a worthy cause. The death of a parent often leaves a family not just sadder, but poorer, and surviving spouses are agitating for improvements in their benefits. But there are needs no government program can fill.

... more at linked article

Now, not to discount at all the reporting that went into this piece, or the saddness and serious of the topic being covered. The article is detailing the tragic consequences of having parents serve in the military who very well may (and many have) leave behind family when they go. In this case, the article is focusing in on the impact of the loss of parents that were killed in action and who will never return home for the children that are left behind.

It's in this area that someone has brilliantly decided that they can co-opt some Bush code-word language and turn it into the most negative thing they can find.

As an example, the Photo Gallery that accompanies the original piece above is entitled: "Left Behind". Actually it's more like this:

LEFT BEHIND

Conveniently located under and to the side of the not so nicely worded:

Children of the Fallen

On the MSN home page, it's more conveniently worded as:

The Children Left Behind

an obvious reference to President Bush's much touted "No Child Left Behind"

I really have to give credit to the authors for these headlines, as the level of leftist bias that is dripping through the attempt to co-opt the words and turn them into tragedy is almost unparalled (at least in my recollection of such happenings).

I guess Newsweek and MSNBC really want to take advantage of the officially opened Bush bashing season. Kick the guy as hard as you can and hope it leaves a mark. It's just par for the course for some "non-biased" news agencies.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

On the other hand, terp, the cover the March 14 issue highlights an article by Fareed Zakaria - "Where Bush Was Right" - so it's not all Bush-bash all the time. I've been a subscriber for 30 years and I agree that on balance, thanks in large part to Jonathan Alter in recent years, NW is more biased toward the left than not. Nothing like the NYT, mind you, but more than willing to focus on negative stories over positive ones.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: