From WNYC in New York, this is NPR's On the Media. I'm Bob Garfield. And I'm Brooke Gladstone.

Lately, the media have come under fire from the Pentagon. Hostilities flared late last month

when Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold said that the combat forces of the Taliban

had been eviscerated. Two weeks later, that assessment was updated by Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld, who said that the Taliban still had substantial forces. That led reporters to question

the probity of the Pentagon and the progress of the war

and put the Secretary of Defense on the defensive,

as when this week he interrupted this exchange between a reporter and a general.

General, there are a few different characterizations of the Taliban combat force strength from this podium.

What is your assessment now?

He is not believe they've been eviscerated.

Of that, I can assure you.

William Salatin wrote in Slate.com that the media were bad newsbearers,

whose reflexive cynicism and impatience were sapping national morale.

In fact, he says, though the media are clearly biased in favor of the American cause, the war

coverage slants toward the Taliban.

Well, there are two different questions at stake here.

One is who's right and wrong in the war.

And the other question is who's winning and who's losing. Now, in the question of who's right or wrong,

obviously the American media are sympathetic to the United States and tend to sort of skew their

coverage in favor of their own government. On the question of who's winning and losing the war,

however, the coverage has been slanted against the United States government in the form of all sorts of not just skepticism, but sort of cynical dismissiveness about our prospects forever finding Osama bin Laden or defeating the Taliban.

...