Carl Rove went to the Hollywood executives and said:
"'The world is full of people who are discerning and we need to recognise that concrete information told with honesty, specificity and integrity is important to the ultimate success of this conflict".

Well, that SOUNDS very altruistic and very "patriotic", but what exactly is "concrete information" versus government sanctioned "spin"?
You know and I know that there's little fairness in reporting and that we'll only hear what they WANT us to hear. They know if they are planning a long "war", that they'll need the media's co-operation AND Hollywoods...

Fairness in reporting?
Doubtful:

http://www.fair.org/

During the weeks following September's terrorist attacks, two leading
dailies used their op-ed pages as an echo chamber for the government's
official policy of military response, mostly ignoring dissenters and policy
critics.

A FAIR survey of the New York Times and the Washington Post op-ed pages for
the three weeks following the attacks (9/12/01 - 10/2/01) found that columns
calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a
great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international law
approaches as an alternative to military action were nearly non-existent.

We counted a total of 44 columns in the Times and Post that clearly stressed
a military response, against only two columns stressing non-military
solutions.

The Times' and Post's in-house columnists provided the bulk of the pro-war
commentary. Two-thirds of the Times columns urging military action were
written in-house, as were more than half of the Post's pro-war columns. This
may say something about which journalists are singled out for promotion to
the prestigious position of columnist.