
When it comes to Syria, corporate media typically betray a lack of skepticism when it comes to government claims about the WMDs of "enemy" countries. But there are notable exceptions.
The national media watch group

When it comes to Syria, corporate media typically betray a lack of skepticism when it comes to government claims about the WMDs of "enemy" countries. But there are notable exceptions.

CBS's Schieffer followed the establishment media's script on Snowden: We don't know what exactly the government is doing, and we should know, but the guy who's generated the discussion about all of this is a narcissist.
Pundits attack NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Rachel Maddow makes false claims about Iran and nuclear weapons. And the Washington Post's new "Sponsored Views" feature will let let corporations and organizations post "responses" to the paper's op-ed pieces–for a price.

Yesterday the New York Times posted an article about U.S. intelligence agencies becoming more confident about their assessments of several suspect chemical weapons attacks. But the intelligence remains, at this point, at arm's length.

The facts on Iran's nuclear power program should be clear by now–but as coverage by the New York Times and MSNBC demonstrates, evidently they're not.

Republicans who were less concerned about government overreach in 2006 have changed their minds in 2013, and some Democrats have gone the other direction. This switch can be seen in the views of some pundits–including Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo (6/11/13) wrote about Edward Snowden yesterday in a way that helped make it clear why so many in the press seem upset that the former NSA consultant revealed the extent of U.S. spying programs aimed at the American public. "I'm a journalist," Marshall wrote. And back when I did national security reporting I tried to get leaks. So I don't think leaks are always wrong…. In fact, leaks are an absolutely critical safety valve against government wrongdoing and/or excessive secrecy. But officials who leak classified information are "breaking an oath and committing a crime," [...]

The debate over the government's surveillance powers that was set off by whistleblower Edward Snowden is an important one. Who is invited to take part in that discussion really determines the kind of debate we're likely to get.

The New York Times says that UN Ambassador-nominee Samantha Power "criticized the American invasion of Iraq because it lacked the council's stamp, among other reasons." But what did Power actually say about the Iraq War before it happened?

The remarkable thing about the Sunday shows is not that they have the same guests over and over–it's that they have the same Republican and conservative guests over and over.
What's the press saying about the Bradley Manning trial? We take a look at a strange CBS Evening News report about a U.S. atrocity in Afghanistan, and David Gregory thinks he found an Obama flip-flop.

How many Iraqis died in the Iraq War? Public responses to that question are disheartening because they reflect a very distorted public perception of the war. But they are indicative of an even bigger problem: corporate media's inadequate coverage of the human costs of U.S.-led wars.

"Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other" is the way conventional Beltway reporters seem to see the world–and it's reflected in their reporting on political events. On the front page of USA Today (6/7/13), Susan Page has a piece wondering if the unfolding scandals surrounding the White House and surveillance will threaten the president's "agenda." That's a strange concern for the moment, but we'll put that aside. The most unusual part of the piece is the very premise: That Obama's actions have verified Republican criticisms of his presidency. As Page puts it, the current story is especially problematic for [...]