News coverage in Iraq

Eric M. Johnson, a marine corps reservist, writes about the Washington Post's coverage of the war. His conclusion:

Chandrasekeran’s meta-narrative admits of no ambiguity. For him and his reporters, they report in straightforward, declarative sentences, with none of the caveats that Bennett mentions. The Americans are still bumbling, the Iraqis continue to seethe. So it shall be in the Washington Post, until Iraq succeeds and they can no longer deny it, just like journalists were forced to admit reality at the end of the Cold War. Or else their words will have their effect, and Western journalists have to flee the country as it disintegrates. Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either.

It is tough to know what is happening in Iraq. I rely on a variety of news sources, including Iraqi blogs. These disparate, often conflicting, sources of information then have to be collated and weighed to give me my 'final' picture of what is going on there. Obviously a good portion of this process is subjective, formed by my pre-existing paradigms and conclusions. I could be in error, and it is wise for all of us to always remember that.