If you've read any of my past columns, you're probably aware that I sometimes poke the American news media in the eye for its treatment of the U.S. armed forces and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. In my judgment, where the military is concerned, our journalists tend to be a bit too stingy with the proverbial carrot, and a little too ready with the stick. So I sometimes take it upon myself to thump the fourth estate when I think someone has crossed the line.

As a consequence of some of the things I've said in print, I get a lot of emails from people who think I'm accusing the American media of political bias. Some of these emails are messages of solidarity from readers who want to thank me for speaking out against what they perceive as a growing liberal conspiracy in the media. Other messages come from readers who are horrified that I would ascribe anything but the purest of motives to any person who carries a press credential.

It may well come as a shock to readers on both sides, but I don't believe in a left wing (or right wing) conspiracy of the media. Although I often encounter people who accept wholeheartedly the existence of the VLWM (Vast Left Wing Media), I don't share their beliefs. Yes there are liberals in the fourth estate, but there are also conservatives. The press has taken to attacking the Bush administration with vitriolic glee, and I have no doubt whatsoever that much of the mainstream news media in America is actively engaged in stirring up public dissent over our military presence in Iraq, but I don't think it's liberal bias at work.

Don't get me wrong; there are times when I almost want to believe in a political conspiracy of the media. I've deployed to the Middle East many times in peace and in war. I have friends and loved ones over there now, men and women I've served with and trained. The photographs, videos, and memories that they bring home from Iraq bear almost no resemblance to the media's version of the situation over there. My own experiences in the region were so utterly at odds with the picture painted by the American press that I almost want to believe that some secret political machinations are in play.

As frustrated as I am with the recent conduct of the press, I don't buy the conspiracy angle for a second. I do think that a great deal the news coverage we see is deliberately slanted. But I don't think the root cause is political bias. In my opinion, the answer lies somewhere else entirely.

In 1988, Gary Hart was considered a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. After eight years of Reagan administration politics, many saw Hart as his party's best chance for breaking the republican deadlock on the presidency. But that didn't stop reporters from the Miami Herald from staking out Hart's townhouse in Washington DC to catch the 50-year-old former democratic senator in an affair with a 29-year-old model named Donna Rice. Nor did the knowledge that they were about to chloroform the political career of a major democratic hopeful stop the Herald's reporters from tracking down photos of Hart aboard the yacht Monkey Business, with that same young model curled up in his lap. By exposing Hart's marital infidelities, they practically guaranteed a republican presidential victory. If there had been a liberal conspiracy at work, the American media would have glossed over the Hart story instead of running it into the ground.

Remember a certain white house intern and the infamous blue dress? Can anyone look back over the national coverage of the Monica Lewinski scandal and seriously claim that President Clinton got off easy? The press beat him up coming and going. If American journalism had been governed by left-leaning politics, I don't think the top man in the Democratic Party would have gotten so thoroughly mauled by his own (supposedly) secret allies. As I recall, he didn't get much slack over Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, the Lincoln Bedroom, or Travelgate either.

An examination of the historical evidence is more than enough to convince me that our press is not the puppet of left wing politics. But having said that, I must also point out that the news media is not an altruistic public service organization. Journalism is a profit-driven industry. It survives by selling newspapers, magazines, and pumping up Nielsen viewer ratings to attract advertising sponsors. It's a basic fact of life that sensational stories sell newspapers, and draw television viewers. Crime, corruption, sex, and death are the top moneymakers in the news industry. Consequently, decision-makers in the media are predisposed to select story angles that maximize controversy. It's not conspiracy. It's not even bias. It's basic economics.

A lot of Americans treat the news media as though it's a benevolent public trust, and that's simply not true. They assume that the stories they see are an even-handed representation of the current world situation. In fact, the lead stories in a typical news lineup are carefully selected to trigger polarized emotional responses in the news-consuming public. “If it bleeds, it leads ” is a long-standing axiom in broadcast journalism. Malfeasance, failure and scandal can glue 200 million viewers to their television screens. Competence, success and fair play can't attract a fraction of that audience.

Put simply, the media gives us what we pay for, and we pay to see controversy. That may be an excellent business model for sweeping the ratings, but we'd be foolish to pretend that it encourages balance or accuracy in journalism.

In case you're thinking that this is a recent phenomenon, let me assure you that it isn't. In 1897, when New York Journal Correspondent Frederick Remington cabled William Randolph Hearst that there were no signs of insurrection in Cuba, Hearst cabled back, “You provide the pictures, and I'll provide the war.” His newspaper launched a series of scathing attacks against the Spanish government, and an ongoing campaign of critical editorials about the U.S. government's failure to act against Spain. He succeeded in inflaming public opinion. Many -- if not most -- historians agree that Hearst's New York Journal was at least as instrumental in touching off the Spanish American War as the sinking of the USS Maine.

Hearst took tremendous pride in the fact that his newspaper was powerful enough to goad nations into war. That's not reporting the news. That's creating the news. It's not a dispassionate presentation of the facts. It's fear mongering for profit. Not even for political gain, but simply to escalate public interest and enhance news industry revenues.

If you pay attention, you'll see the same thing happening right now. The fourth estate's coverage of Iraq is carefully crafted to maximize controversy. We get the news, but only those portions that are likely to galvanize us with anger or fear. Enraged and frightened citizens buy a lot of newspapers and spend a lot of time glued to their television screens. So the coverage we get is slanted toward our insecurities and our weaknesses. The American media isn't following some liberal political agenda. It's just ramping up its customer base in the only way it can.

Ask the average American citizen whose idea was it to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and they'll probably point the finger toward President Bush. Our vaunted friends of the forth estate know this, and they do nothing to disabuse us of the notion. Of course, most journalists also know that President Clinton signed Public Law 105-338 on October 31, 1998. That law,...