Well, the L.A. Times ought to know something about propaganda.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said.
Change the word "poorly" to "favorably," and you have the L.A. Times, the New York Times, and a few other papers nailed down perfectly.
Add to that an enthusiasm for disrupting military operations, trumpeting defeatist propaganda, and revealing classified operations, and you pretty much tie a ribbon on it.
If al Qaeda and the Baathists were actually paying these papers for what they write, what would be different?