Illustration by Cody Angell

We've all heard the slogans before. The most trusted name in news. We report, you decide. But are they really trustworthy? Do they report just the facts and nothing more? The truth is, there is no such thing as objective reporting.

Whether it is on television, in print, on the radio, or over the Internet, each source delivers information to the public that is molded to support its particular agenda. It is, therefore, up to the recipient to see through the various slants in order to determine what facts are being sent as opposed to what message is being sent.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, both CNN and Fox News provided its viewers with similar, factual coverage of the events of the war. Each source, however, presented the news to the public in a way that supported their respective political stance.

Steve Campbell columnist

CNN, which is owned by Ted Turner, has never been known to shy away from an opportunity to criticize President Bush. The war in Iraq provided many of these opportunities. During the buildup to war, CNN was quick to provide military analysts that could educate its viewers on the various aspects of warfare.

These analysts, who were highly respected, spoke of military doctrine, armament capabilities, and enemy tactics, among other things. While providing the factual information, nearly every one of them stated that the war was going to take longer than the Bush administration claimed, there would be an enormous amount of civilian casualties and that the United States should expect to sustain a large amount of military casualties.

While the news and the message were given together, the news remained factual, while the overall message clearly did not.

Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, claims to be fair and balanced, but it is well known that they lean to the right, supporting the Republican president much more than their rivals from Atlanta.

They also provided their viewers with military analysts that gave the exact same information on military doctrine, armament capabilities, and enemy tactics. But nearly all of them supported the actions of the president and only brought up topics like length of war, civilian casualties and U.S. military casualties when it was clear that the outcomes were favorable to the president.

The tactic of combining facts with a tailored message can be seen in local media as well.

Last Wednesday in the Wildcat, it was reported that 68 percent of Palestinians approve of suicide bombing and that 79 percent of young Palestinians want to be martyrs. Because this was old news and may no longer be accurate, a price was paid to reprint these statistics, and therefore, we call it an advertisement. It was at one time, however, considered news, based on the fact that numerous, reliable sources that were cited in small print within the ad, reported this as factual news.

In this advertisement, the statistics were the news. But what was the message?

The advertisement showed an Israeli athlete on one side, and a suicide bomber on the other. A statement claiming that the individuals were considered heroes to the children of their respective nationalities accompanied each picture.

One could justifiably argue that this was a pro-Israel ad, delivered to the public, with the intent of spreading the message that terrorism breeds within the Palestinian people, while Israel only produces productive citizens that are worthy of being called heroes.

Is this a factual argument? Of course not. It is simply a message that the sponsors of the ad want to relay to the public. The ad, itself, states that there are two sides to every story, but only one truth. One could argue that this ad delivers only one side of the story to its readers.

Should this advertisement have been allowed to be printed? Of course it should have been. The First Amendment to our constitution provides us with that right. Some, however, would argue that this ad is not protected by the First Amendment, as its intent is to promote hatred in the impressionable minds of our youth.

This argument may be true of the advertisement and its message was intended for elementary or junior high school students, but while these age groups may accept the ad's message as truth, the same cannot be said for college students. To do so would be an insult to their intelligence.

While the media sources report the facts along with their respective slants, it is the ultimate responsibility of the viewer to filter out the message in order to obtain the news.