The AP's "analysis" sucked, too.

Creator of Worlds, I thought the last sentence of Ms. Mearans analysis negated any so-called bias found in the preceding 99 1/2% of the piece.

Cranky Bill, my lefty friends wouldn't even call that bias. You see, polls show Bush and Blair are in fact "in descent" and Iraq was indeed an "adventure". It's not bias if it's facts.

You guys see bias everywhere.

I would hope the hundreds of thousands of men and women serving, or having served, in Iraq and the region would also be included in this "adventure". As would those countless thousands saved from torture and death at the hands of the former regime.

You're sully, Mr. Sponge! An Adventure is what indy went on when he pistol-whipped all those Nazi Ahnenerbe dudes and recovered the Ark of The Covenant. When you use it to talk about an ongoing, bloody, multiyear occupation of a foreign country, it's a loaded term. From the AmHer dictionary:

2) An undertaking of a questionable nature, especially one involving intervention in another state's affairs.

According to the 'questionable nature' part of that definition, it's use in the above context means that it's part of a negative description. Therefore, it shouldnt be used as it was in a balanced article.

A lot of people cry bias too much. But here, it's pretty clear cut.

Ahhhh. . . that was supposed to be "Silly". Did I just lose my street cred?

"You see, polls show Bush and Blair are in fact "in descent" and Iraq was indeed an "adventure"."

No, polls show people's opinon regarding certain matters...something I would have thought was obvious.

http://www.answers.com/topic/adventure

1.
1. An undertaking or enterprise of a hazardous nature.
2. An undertaking of a questionable nature, especially one involving intervention in another state's affairs.
2. An unusual or exciting experience: an adventure in dining.
3. Participation in hazardous or exciting experiences: the love of adventure.

Sure seems to me to match what Iraq was. I'm not seeing the scandal here

You answered your own question:

An undertaking of a questionable nature, especially one involving intervention in another state's affairs.

That is the chief intent of the word in the reporter's context, and the definition that you cite describes it accurately, yet far too drily. It's an actively derisive term.

I think that you may need to pick up some literature to gauge the traditional connotation and employment of "adventure." My analysis should not suffer any ingenue's confusion over its consistently loaded, snarky application.

But if you recognize this and that's still how you like your "news," then I suppose everyone's got their quirks. Like, for instance: I like this brand of chocolate ice cream that actually tastes like rotten hallibut, even though they still insist on calling it "chocolate ice cream."

I like my "impartial news sources" to be "generally impartial news sources," however.

You sure are one sneaky snake, Bill.

Come on, Bill, the war in Iraq really is a big problem that has dragged down Bush's popularity. The Libby indictment and Abramoff scandal were important also.

But, you are absolutely right about the WaPo article. That kind of snarky wording in an otherwise serious article is maddening. It is OK is a casual blog post, but not a news article. Writers who cannot resiste the temptation to insert that kind of wording should get their own blogs, and blow off steam there. Then maybe they could do a better job staying objective when they write their professional articles.

I was just glad they didn't call it a "misadventure," which you know they were aching to do.

My expectations are low.

Come on, Bill, the war in Iraq really is a big problem that has dragged down Bush's popularity.

Oh, I'm not disputing that it's a major factor that's dragged down his popularity. But I'd argue that what's nailed his popularity to these historically meager levels is unrest among his base about other issues. For example, lay the percent of disapproval of Iraq over the percent disapproval of Bush, and you'll see that Bush gets the worse shake by 12-20 pts., last time I checked.

I believe that general disapproval of Bush is what is making people more susceptable to negative perceptions of Iraq, not the otherway around.

People don't see Bush as a bully to congress like the press does, they see him as tool of congress, rubberstamping everything they send to him. Immigration is a big factor, underlying that is his deferrance to congress

I'm confused - is there an "editorial," "Op-Ed," or even mealy-mouthed "analysis" disclaimer that I'm missing in the run-up to the article's text?

Of course not; it's The Washington Post

If it were the Post's editorial page, it would have been snarkless. The Post's editorial page has supported the Iraq war from the get-go, and has been mostly in the President's corner, saving the newspaper from sinking to depths to which only the New York Times has plunged. It's obvious that the news reporting and editing functions aren't influenced by the same good sense that usually carries the day on the paper's editorial page.

I generally find the Post's news reporting better than most papers as well - which is why it surprises me when a piece of obvious snark worms its way through.

As has been widely remarked, many of the "disapprovers" disapprove of the way the war has been conducted - half-heartedly, with more attention to political correctness than to punishing the enemy , and with little awareness that those who work terror on others can only be defeated by greater terror and destruction inflicted on them and theirs. To read the WaPo, you would think it's obvious that all disagreement with Bush is from defeatists and open-borders socialists. Not so.

I was probably a bit too hard on the WaPo's news reporting and editing, but that part of the organization doesn't seem to have learned what the editorial editors clearly understand -- everyone has a point of view and it's impossible to filter that point of view out of the writing. What is possible, however, is to include among the writers people with varying points of view, so that there isn't an obvious slant to the newspaper's reporting and opinions, taken as a whole. The WaPo is better than the NYTimes because it, unlike the NYTimes, hasn't made a hard-left, BDS-suffering point of view a hiring criteria. It's hard to find center-right perspectives among the reporters at the Post, but center-center/left is the prevailing view, and such a perspective does provide some protection against the afflictions of the left wing, such as BDS (Dana Milbank is a good example of the Post's center-left reporters -- more often than not critical of conservatives and sometimes unfairly so, but also often critical of the further reaches of the left and sometimes even supportive of center-center/right Republicans, such as George W. Bush).

We who lean right (whatever that means -- I figure that, in the US anyway, to be a self-described conservative usually means that one has classically liberal views) need to avoid disparaging the center-left, even when they seem to be unfairly critical of causes and politicians we support. Joe Klein makes nonsensical comments about the Iraq war -- criticism unrestrained by inconvenient facts and apparently ignorant of the undeniable nobility of the cause -- yet he offers anecdotes about George W. Bush that are striking examples of the President's fundamental compassion and -- dare I say it -- Liberalism. Joe and Bill Bennett are old friends. Go figure. There's something there for the rest of us to learn.

Great comment.

ionolsen21 I am really impressed!

ionolsen23 Best site I see. Thanks.

ionolsen40 I am really impressed!