Is Gannet "liberal" or "conservative" media?

[Shaughnn]

Gannett Company, Inc. is the parent company of the newspapers publishing a joint-editorial on Monday which is critical of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. These newspapers are the "Army Times", the "Navy Times", the "Marine Corps Times" and the "Air Force Times" and are marketed to service personel. These publications are not affiliated with the Department of Defence or connected to the United States Military in any way. They are a "for profit" enterprise. Gannett also publishes "USA Today" and various local newspapers across the nation and in Great Briatain. They also own over 20 local television stations, though no cable networks. I've looked through the editorial recommendations for Tuesday's election at randomly selected newspaper websites and I believe that overall, Gannett's publications fall to the "right" of the line. In light of this editorial, would other's disagree?
Can we talk about this?,
Shaughnn

To be jointly published in "Army Times", "Navy Times", "Marine Corps Times" , and Air Force Times" on Monday November 6th, 2006:

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

[jgleason]

Bias can be difficult to pin down. I look for facts over opinions. Editorials can be quite amusing but they will always reflect the bias of the editorial writer. Can conservative editorials be published in left-leaning newspapers? Sure, happens all the time. Just the same that liberal editorials grace the pages of what one would view as more right-leaning newspapers.

Here's a link to a piece where the case is made that Gannett is more a left-leaning organization...

http://www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigu...asp?gooID=6965

[John K]

I'll take liberal for two hundred alex.

Shaughnn,
Your self employed now, vote republican.

[davem]

Gannett also publishes "USA Today"

That tells me what I need to know.

[flatfloor]

Can we talk about this?

Sure, go ahead.

[sdaniels7114]

All I can say is that anyone who believes the Army (et al) Times is a liberal rag is wasting their god-given talent in the tile industry, and needs to switch over to carpet post haste. With strrrrrreeeettttcccchhhhhing ability like that, you're a natural for the fuzzy stuff.

[Scooter]

I'm no expert, but assumed with USA Today as their flagship, Gannet is conservative.

But Liberal or conservative, most intelligent people now believe that Dumbsfeld needs to go. This is like debating whether Jerry Haggard is a fag, OK?

I don't know if you ready ANY of the Newspapers this weekend, but Richard Pearle, the co-architcet (with Paul Wolfkowitz) of the Iraq war, has now been quoted as saying the war (his war) was a mistake, the goals were unatainable, and even if somehow the war could be justified, that Dumbsfeld screwed up the process over the last 3 years making it worse.

Don't call Pearle and idiot or dismiss his opion lightly, he was a very top advisor of Bush for 4 years and is basically credited with being the architect of the mess we currently face. He's not some liberal hack, OK? He is a solid Republican, and a close advisor to Bush.

The real question for me is assuming the truth in what he says (which is essentially a mea cupla or "my bad") why would come out now and say this? Why not wait until Wednesday?

Might a Republican actually be able to admit a mistake and have a conscience? Omigod, what a concept.

[Padge]

I think this is a good question for the coveted---"Undecided Voter". Perhaps, they can finally make up their minds about something. Then again---

Padge

p.s. Oh yeah, check out the Tennessean (another Gannet publication ) Now that's a conservative rag if there ever was one.

[Eugenius]

Are you a liberal or conservative Shaughnn?

[jane m]

Well guys, your debate gives me hope. If you're having this much trouble deciding if a paper has a bias, then maybe, just maybe, journalists are getting back to doing their jobs of REPORTING and not cherry-picking facts that support their respective party affiliations.

Now, be big boys and admit just b/c someone reports something you don't like or agree with, doesn't mean it's not true.

[Shaughnn]

Eugenius,
I believe I've already answered this question here on the forums. Maybe even in response to one of your accusations in the past. I am neither "Conservative" or "Liberal". I'm sorry if my full-spectrum self doesn't conform to your rigid black-and-white world but I'm too complex of a person to be squeezed into a convenient cubby-hole. You should be too?
I bring things here to the Mud Box for discussion because I honestly believe that discussing controversial topics openly and with candor is a civic duty. "United We Stand, Devided We Fall", isn't a call to cowtow to political pressures. It's a stirring reminder that we are a nation of independant states, with seperate interests, united by common principles. In that, is the implied OBLIGATION that we must nurture a harmonious political enviroment so that our unified attentions can be focused for the betterment of ALL our peoples.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Political parties are a distraction from that obligation, and I reject them all.
I hope that that answered your question?,
Shaughnn

[Splinter]

Shaughnn...

[jjwq8]

In short, I believe the Pirate is for the dissolution of the dissolute. A thoroughly admirable notion and one deserving of everyones support.

[Scooter]

I'm a communist.

[GraniteGirl]

Well, Scooter, at least you're not shy

I'm virulently libertarian - if that would make a difference.