Is Newsweek biased??

[Pushing_Forward]

In a conversation with my cousin he brought up how newsweek is biased, at the time I thought he was just talking out his bunghole. Soon after that I made a visit to there website.
Example- take a look at the Iraq war section - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3037886/site/newsweek/ they have nothing positive to say about the war. I wasn't expecting them to be a mouth piece for the bush administration, just 1 positive story(a soldiers tale, waterlines that are being put in) would have done it.
but nothing.
What do you all think?

[Dontdropthesoad]

Is Newsweek biased??

Hi welcome to earth.

[sNiPe_]

every single news network is biased in one way or another

EDIT: news isnt that reliable.

[ps527]

it is owned by the wash post so yes it is biased

[EastrnPacific]

Newsweek is balanced by U.S. News and World Report, in much the same way MSNBC is balanced by Fox News.

Time is pretty unbiased, the CNN of mags.

[bergshadow]

I hate to be the first to tell you guys, but seeing the Iraq war as a corrupt and criminal operation of unnecessary horror is a view common among all kinds of people - it's not in itself a sign of political bias to anyone outside the dominant US righty extreme.

Pushing_Forward they have nothing positive to say about the war. I wasn't expecting them to be a mouth piece for the bush administration, just 1 positive story(a soldiers tale, waterlines that are being put in) would have done it.
but nothing. Well, from the very first page linked (no searching required) this:
THE CITIES WERE NOT BATHED IN BLOOD’
It was hardly a perfect election. But against all odds, Election Day brought unexpected hope and gaiety to the streets of Baghdad and this:
• Dickey: Remembering Aid Worker Marla Ruzicka

Scanning some of the rest of it, what I see is a lot of sensationalism and no hard, factual criticism of the war from a lefty viewpoint. The soft stuff makes war look bad, to no one's shock, but the hard stuff is apparently official context bound analysis.

For example, there's a sensationalist piece on little kids who had their parents "shot right before their eyes" by US soldiers, but nothing to indicate the sources of procedure and policy that make such scenes inevitable, or how common they are, or how oddly unnecessary given the alleged goals of the invasion. If that was intended to be left biased, somebody is confusing handwringing with news. Confusing handwringing with news feeds directly into official spin.

So the mag looks like a standard sensationist purveyor of righty context to me, as far as the Iraq war goes.

Looking around at the non-Iraq stuff, again on the first page and without searching, I see that the most popular archive featured is an analysis of US high schools that is basically a soft propaganda piece for the latest federal education initiatives.

So my initial hope that there was a mainstream US media outlet with a lefty bias is dashed once again. Oh well - - -

[VladimirLenin]

news isnt about what happened, thats history's job (history isnt doing a good job either) news is about telling you what you want to hear.

in countries where freedom of speech is like something that doesnt exist, news is about telling you what government wants you to hear

[Nocturnal]

you should probably consider that idea that just because they say nothing positive about the war that that does not reflect on their bias

media in general is going to focus on the negatives, any network that does not do this is suspect in my book

also might it just be that there isn't anything positive about the Iraq war?

[Devastation]

Negative news sells more paper.

People like the illusion that their home is the happiest place on earth.