First a disclaimer: there are some reporters who give the facts, without much bias, without selectively culling something that fits an editorial template. Por ejemplo, the Christian Science Monitor is one paper that, on the whole, is very fair and has excellent reporting (whether the reporter is pro-war or anti-war).
However, out of the hundreds and hundreds of people that I know who were in Iraq (including Public Affairs Officers), only three, THREE, said that the embeds with them reported the truth. Perhaps, one of the most frustrating aspects of this conflict for my comrades has been the issue of the Press.
Wretchard at the Belmont Club (which you should read every day) has an interesting exchange between Secretary Rumsfeld and the Press. Be sure to read the whole post, but here's his commentary:
...The 'Iraq is in a state of civil war' lead will continue to be emphasized but attacks may suddenly shift to American troops after a long period of being concentrated upon sectarian targets to create another theme: a Shi'ite insurgency. This plus a clamor to 'bring the boys home' may create a triple wave designed to entirely collapse public support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The enemy may have failed to win the Sunni insurgency; been unable to plunge Iraq into civil war; proved incapable of stopping the formation of a new Iraqi army and state. But none of that will matter if the three themes of 'ongoing civil war', a Shi'ite insurgency and the need to engage in headlong retreat are successfully promoted in "the capitals of the Western world".
While certain editorial boards want to publish more Abu Ghraib photos, most are under-reporting the effects of Iranian Army soldiers in the unrest in Iraq.
What can we do about it?