I get my media news from four main sources. The primary one is the internet, which gives me access to the entire planet of news. Fortunately, most major newspapers don't require payment for access to recent material, although the NYT needs to take the price tag off its archives.

A distant second is the morning paper. I read the funnies, and get to the front page later. By the time I get to the paper, I already know the big story of the day.

Third is the radio. I like to listen while I work, and every hour ABC news has its hourly report. Naturally, one assumes that the stories on this three minute bit are those which ABC news considers the most important. In some ways, radio is first, since it's what wakes me up in the morning. If anything real critical is happening, I hear about it then and turn on the TV. This is how I heard about the WTC.

Fourth is TV, where I go when I need on the spot, Right Now coverage of ongoing stories. At night I check a cable news station and watch the crawl underneath for what's happening. Mostly I ignore whoever's talking.

I haven't watched network news in years.

Back to the radio:

They just had a report on National Guardsmen returning home from Iraq. They had the same report an hour ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up an hour from now.

A Guardman is quoted in a taped bit. It's the only quote in the story. He said (paraphrasing) that he's glad to be back, but there are still soldiers dying in Iraq, so it's a "bittersweet" feeling.

Okay, not exactly A.N.S.W.E.R. material, and no doubt other returnees are thinking the same thing.

But of all the interviews they must have recorded, there wasn't one more positive? Not one Guardsman told the reporter "great to be back! We got Saddam and now we're kicking ass!" or something in between?

This is just the latest example of this "selective" quoting, also used in print. A reporter no doubt tapes dozens of quotes, and then it's up to the editor.

And he selects something that makes the war look futile. Or in street interviews in Iraq, they select the one guy who misses Saddam. Of course, the editor is doing it to make a political point. Why else? He knows there's no time for a dozen quotes. Just one.

Let's pick the "bittersweet" guy.

There's no way to counter this. The other quotes end up in the trash bin. Nobody is going to line them up and ask the editor "why not put THIS guy on the air?" Reporters don't care, it's not their job.

I'm just getting sick of it. Again, this is just the most recent example of ABC doing exactly this, and somewhere I posted another example. The radio news has time for one quote in a story, and it's almost always from the Left's point of view.