It's All in the Spin

Here's how the LA Times chose to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the liberation of Iraq:

On the fourth anniversary today of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an extensive poll of public attitudes about the prolonged occupation shows Iraqis are tiring of the American presence and are deeply skeptical of its motives, even as many believe life is now better without Saddam Hussein.

. . .

[M]ore than half said they believed the security situation would improve immediately after American-led forces withdraw from the country. And nearly a quarter said they believed the purpose of President Bush's plan to "surge" more than 20,000 additional troops into Iraq was to use the country as a base from which to attack other Middle Eastern nations.

. . .

[N]early half said they believed Iraq had either devolved into full-blown civil war or was close to it. Still, 45% said they believe the new security crackdown will work.

Now compare the reporting of the same poll in the Times of London:

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

. . .

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not . . .

. . .

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Amazing differences in tone and emphasis, no? Reporting in part on the same poll, USA Today headlines its piece, "Iraqis see hope drain away" -- despite the fact that both polls covered show that more Iraqis think they are better off without Saddam Hussein.

Could it be any more obvious that the American press has taken sides in the domestic debate over the war, and aren't willing to be constrained by old-fashioned journalistic notions like "accuracy" in their reporting of it?

Agenda journalism at its worst.