You asked dtb, but I'd like to give it a shot...

Now, given what you tell me about the media and what they do, tell me why their stories are considered by so many people to be an accurate and objective view of what's going on in Iraq. Or anywhere, for that matter.

Decades of conditioning.

Think about who those "so many people" are. The ones who make themselves heard -- by which we believe we can guess what all of them are thinking -- are most likely to be a bit younger than us: The Tail of The Boom. The youngest of them were in grade school when Vietnam was on the news. They've absorbed the entire evolution of television journalism (as have we), from the inheritors of Murrow (most prominently, Cronkite) to infotainment, along the way beng exposed (if not addicted) to CNN, Headline, and the Weather Channel. One point to consider is that their impression of the verity of television news content was made in the Pentagon Papers/Watergate era; an impression which has apparently lasted. Another point is: not all of them are aware of the manipulative nature of the changes, and they still trust the source. "I saw it on [fill in name of network here], so it must be true."

Anyone younger doesn't remember a time before wars had theme music and logos; they're our children.