One week ago when I did a search for stories on "illegal""war""Iraq" stories from USA were 3.5% of all 2,040 stories listed, and of those 99% were letters to the editor or alternative media.  Today stories from USA "illegal war iraq" are more like 20% of total. MSM.

I guess we are in shades of grey here.  Where the situation in China where Google is under agreement to censor the term "democracy" is the extreme end and what I have experienced which is a blackout that has become more conspicuous as time goes on.

Michael Getler, ombudsman for the Washington Post addressed the issue in his article, "News Over There, Not Over Here."  He took his paper and Walter Pincus to task for not covering the Downing Street Minutes.  Walter said he was too busy covering the UK election.

Within a week, Getler said that the story should have been front paged, that it was "journalistically mandatory."

I am talking about managing the news, filtering the news and managing public opinion.  The news stories that are not to be found are "illegal""war""Iraq."  The UK, involved in the same war, and the Blair administration involved in the same illegalities.. their coverage of "illegal""war""Iraq" outnumbers US stories by about 8 to 1.

More Americans are getting their US news from UK sources than ever.  There is a reason for this.  

I can't find a journalist to say, "My editor would not let me run this story because it cast too harsh a light on the Bush administration's questionable basis for going to war in Iraq."

To institute editorial standards like this is the opposite of good journalism, and an abdegnation of the role of the fourth estate as watchdog over all the branches of government, especially to keep an eye on the executive branch and foreign policy.  

So I say the news is managed, filtered controlled and blacked out, although in answer to the hue and cry in the last 6 weeks, there has been more of a biting edge to some journalists... who seem to have been waiting... asking "Is it safe to come out?"