The US media has its own credibility and is not under the influence of any government pressure. The media is quite mature and sensible to cover the facts rather than providing false information.
There is never such a thing as an unbiased opinion. Despite the writers and reporters trying to sound neutral, there's always going to be a minuscule twist on the news, regardless of the subject. It may be a bias so small that it seems nonexistent, but that bias is still there. Along with that, many news networks do put a twist on the issues, such as the war in Iraq, in order to get their viewers to support the viewpoints of the network.
I believe there is no longer an unbiased coverage of anything about the Iraq war, or any other matter, anymore. Networks lean one way or the other. They have messages that imply one thing or another. Unbiased reporting is rare. I turn to the BBC when I want coverage of the Iraq war. I have more faith in the BBC than I do in any U.S. media coverage of anything.
Before the Iraq War, even the heralded New York Times presented biased, inaccurate information about the evidence regarding weapons of mass destruction. All media outlets display a bias that does not fully cover the Iraq War from the Middle Eastern perspective. Important details, such as the number of Iraqi citizens killed, have not been reported. Nor has there been much coverage of the use of drones outside of the area of conflict. Even the formerly trusted sources, like the NY Times and Wall Street Journal, have been shown to ask permission from government or corporate sources before reporting news. Of course, outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC have long been heavily biased towards one end of the spectrum. Most, if not all, media outlets do not report independently.
The U.S. media is very much biased, and is very much controlled by a very small group of people. The U.S. government is really in control of the U.S. media and dictates what we see, hear, and read every single day. The media always takes a position when reporting a story and, oftentimes, is told what position they will take from the owners of the company and from the U.S. government. The government very much wants the U.S. public to think that we're doing a good job over in Iraq, and that we are there for a good reason. They want us to see troops doing well and helping the Iraqi people. They don't want us to see troops getting needlessly blown up, or attacked by Iraqi civilians. They don't want us to know just how bad it is over there, or that we really need to get out.
The U.S. media coverage of the Iraq war has been extremely biased. It has been biased in favor of the war throughout. While there was no real justification for the war, the media, at best, covered it as a debate, without debunking the lies motivating the war. Many portions of the media actively participated in the deception. In addition, the coverage of the war more generally slants towards the U.S., focusing, for example, on a few thousand U.S. invaders who died, as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.
Since the beginning of the Iraq War the US media has had a major liberal slant. They consistently try to paint it as a brutal war that is not needed. They very rarely mention any successes in Iraq, only the hardship and violence to Americans and the Iraqi people. It would be nice if it was unbiased, but it is not.
U.S. media's primary goal is to gain viewership. Reporting actual, real, unbiased information is a secondary goal. Thus, the media really tells sides of the story that Americans want to hear. They will seldom report something that will go against America's frame of mind. A great example of this phenomenon is when Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008. I have read many American articles, and not one of them cared to mention that Georgian troops had been bombarding civilian areas for days. American media simply stated that Russia invaded Georgia. This is clearly a gross misrepresentation of the entire event.
Many people were against the war in Iraq in the first place. The media is attempting, to some extent, to portray it as a successful mission. The media is biasing it's content in attempt to create support for a war that was and still is seen as unjustified and unnecessary.
After the lessons of Vietnam, I expected the media to go all out to expose the real reasons for our entry into the war, and the real devastation it has caused. Instead, the 9/11 effect has seemed to slant the media in support of the military. And I think overwhelming public sentiment supporting soldiers (in contrast to the Vietnam experience) has also slanted media coverage.
It is human nature to see things through the filter of a person's perspective that is based on their upbringing, environment, and learned attitudes about things. Although the media prides itself on being unbiased, it would not be fair nor accurate to say that the U.S. has been or could be completely unbiased. Can the media do it's best to minimize the biased views Americans would have? Yes, but it can't be totally unbiased.
It is human nature to be biased. It is ingrained in us for protection. When the media owns all of the information, they can give it to us in bits and increments or not at all. The media is a business and they are ultimately there to make money. It only stands to reason that they show us what they want in order to benefit themselves.
It is my opinion that our government and media studios do not want another "Vietnam." What I mean by this is that these institutions do not want a mass America protesting the war due to unbiased and honest news reports showing the true nature and brutality of the Iraqi war. It is truly naive to think that our government doesn't have their hands firmly placed in a controlling manner on our media. We are subject to propaganda the same as any other country in the world.
The media in the United States tries to find the bad in everything. Even celebrities are portrayed in an awful light, no matter what they do. After something as small as that, how could I not think that the media is showing everything in a biased light? Until they prove themselves to be correct, or even moral, my opinion will stay the same.
I think that our media tells us what we want to hear, depending on our channel choice. I think that we choose our news when we choose our source; news programs today freely mix fact and opinion. I think that news produced in this country is also inherently focused on an "American" perspective and concerns itself too much with upholding our sense of "justice" and "freedom." I think that the better way to get a clear perspective on the war and on our impact on the world in general is to watch news produced in countries other than our own.
I think that the United States presence in Iraq is unwarranted, and I also believe that many other citizens of the United States are starting to believe the same thing. So, I think that the media coverage is biased to make U.S. citizens believe in the cause. I think that they portray many things in Iraq as horrible just to force American theologies on the citizens of Iraq.
The media coverage is clearly biased to varying degrees depending on what news station or source you view. There tends to be polarizing, dichotomous viewpoints that state that either the war is a complete failure or that it is a success and we need to continue supporting it. There is also another clear and obvious bias of reporting from the American standpoint while minimizing the effects of the native Iraqi people.
Words like "democracy" and "freedom" are tossed about in relation to this war. These words have no meaning or relevance in Iraq. They are US ideals, and, as such, have no place in this discussion.
If a station is democratic/republican, they are going to express the views that they feel about the war. Everyone is going to be somewhat biased as far as the side they are on. The least biased would be the moderate or middle opinions because they are not going by governmental standards.