I e-mailed the moderator with the idea for this board. Several people will see my name and reflexively assume it is a political musings wanna be board. Wrong!

A "Media Musings" board can be good if we stick to the facts. I don't mean the fact they got the story wrong. I mean they reported it one way one day and then reported it differently a few days later.

If we are all adults we can limit ourselves to that.

(Before anyone suggests the liberal bias board on PM I suggest they tell me what direction is the bias of not admitting past mistakes and inaccuracies.)

Some "esteemed" people will assume I have political examples. They are right. As right as the guy who tells you that most accidents happen in the home. I have lots of political examples because surprise, surprise I'm interested in politics.)

There are non-political examples too.

I'm talking about nit in the news. I don't mean reporting an opinion I mean reporting some "fact" then claiming another "fact" that totally contradicts it.

For example (a political example) the BBC news reported that there is no evidence that terrorists are getting into Iraq via Syria. A few days earlier they reported the "fact" that a suicide car bomb driver had a Syrian passport. That, in Star Trek, would be a nit.

A non-political example is with the New England Patriots. After the Lawyer Milloy release and the 31-0 loss to Buffalo a "reporter" for ESPN stated the "fact" that Bill Belichick's team hated him and his days were numbered.

That same reporter claims they are the Cowboys first "real" test. (Aside: every week brings another "real" test for the Cowboys. As Parcells said you are what you record says you are.) That is a nit. The Patriots are either a team in disarray or "real"; the terms are mutually exclusive.

There is the firing of a local radio talk show host. The Station Manager said it was because of his low ratings. Four months earlier she was quoted in the paper saying he had high ratings. Low or high, it can't be both.

I assume this happens a lot in Entertainment "news". If the fact is reported that Ben told Jennifer no more jewel encrusted toilet seats then when he buys her one either he caved or they got the first report wrong. (I never followed the Bennifer thing, and I don't know if he said no more jewel encrusted toilet seats.) (Aside to Ben Afflect: If she really did go ballistic at an aide for stirring her tea clockwise instead of counterclockwise, run away as fast as you can.)

Is fiction being held to a higher standard of reality than "news"?

Let me post a few examples of what is not a media nit.

"Fox news said, 'Bush Jr. is a moral person we can all look up to,' when in truth he is nothing of the sort. Look at these links that prove it hjjp:\iam.right.and you are wrong.pttthz"

"CBC claims to be for medical marijuana use, but that logic flies in the face of their stance on four wheel drive."

"CNN had a story that Earl Smith won the hot dog eating championship by eating 143 hot dogs in five minutes on Monday but corrected themselves that it was only 142 hot dogs in ten minutes. Which is it CNN?"

If we can not stick to just the facts of that changing news cast and Kerriem has to post here frequently then she will delete the board.

I don't have a low enough expectation of everyone here to think she'll have to. You can prove me wrong on that one.

(Note to Kerriem: I'll send you an e-mail admitting I was wrong if you feel you must delete this board.)

Here is non-political example.

On the Fox Sports Net (Owned by Fox which shows NFC games) they hawk a segment on their NFL show they call the shotgun. Warren Moon is going to discuss all the playoff games. As a Patriot fans I stay tuned. Spots on NFC teams I don't care much about, but that promo keeps coming on. Finally Warren Moon discusses the Eagles versus Greenbay and the Rams versus the Panthers. I'm waiting for the Chiefs versus Colts and Patriots versus Titans. Instead they thank him and go to commercial.

I consider this a nit because they repeatedly used the word "all". They have shown games with teams from the AFC in the past, so they have acknowledge the existence of the AFC.

Okay, I'm not sure where to put this, but this seems like a good place.

Anyway, I get a lot of my news (when I'm away from college and free newspapers) from the yahoo.com homepage headlines. And I've noticed something about the AP and their coverage of the ongoing Iraqi conflict. I usually read anything having to do with activity going on in Iraq. And I usually read up on any conflicts of note that make the front page. I've noticed, though, that whenever soldiers die, it always makes a note of it (4 died here, 1 died here, 2 died in this explosion, etc.) But the articles never seem to say how many insurgents were killed, or whether they were driven off, or any details other than they attacked. It makes it sound like our soldiers are getting continually killed without inflicting damage back, like they're helpless to counter. Why is this? Why do the articles make it sound like the insurgents are executing victorious ambush after victorious ambush?

It's nothing new, Josh. You think a 1944 copy of the New York Times had articles like "600 G.I.s killed in push on Caen, 987 German casualties?"

I hope this is the right board... The Spiegel, one of Germany's most famous weekly magazines, is now available for the english-speaking minority of the world, too! here is the link

So now you can get information from other sources and other viewpoints - hope it's interesting!

Technically, I've had Access to French, British, German, Israeli and Chinese sources for years... oh never mind.