What a fantastic media show we've had so far. From the day the first Tomahawk missile landed o­n the soils of Iraq shattering the lives of many, up to now it has been just overload of information.

This has so far been the widest TV coverage (real-time) of a war that has caused a major rift between nations of the world and taken away so many innocent lives. So much hi-tech equipment was flown down to Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq and other parts of the Arab world just to bring the entire war to the footsteps of our home. Credit should also be given for the courage and determination of the so-called 'embedded' news reporters who travel with the coalition army.

The role the media has played in this war has not o­nly been entertaining (at the expenses of Iraqis and the coalition soldiers lives, of course) but also had shown us the real potential of the modern entertainment and media world.

I have had the luxury of watching the entire coverage uncensored as I have not been in Malaysia since the war started and the country where I am now has much better media liberalisation then what we have back home (no offence to the viewers in Malaysia). I had six to seven different channels to get the live coverage from.

Oh mythe propaganda war has been much more intense then the actual show of power. I am no political analyst or media critic but from a layman point of view I have seen what the Western media - mainly BBC and CNN - can do to the minds of an amateur viewer.

The media pattern that had been very obvious and alarming was the role-play of CNN and BBC along with their governments in spicing up the propaganda war. Since Day 1 of the 'Aggression in Iraq' these so-called mother of all independent news organisations have shown us the brutal ways of Saddam's regime and the sufferings of the Iraqis under this fallen dictator (whereabouts still unknown). Little have they shown the conditions of the ordinary Iraqi civilians caught between the sufferings of Saddam and the showers of hell that the coalition army besieged upon them.

From what I have noticed, the reporters who should be reporting the actual happenings of the war, took it upon themselves to give very many opinions favouring the coalition army. o­ne obvious reporter is Jim Clancy (I think I got the name right) of CNN. The way he was covering the war was as if he was seeking the popularity to run for the US Senate or something. Each time his face is shown, my wife (an amateur news viewer) just curses him and turns the channel.

It was when other independent news agencies such as al-Jazeera reflected the actual devastation that the war had brought to the Iraqis, CNN and BBC has taken a more balanced approach in reporting the aftermath. But, not without criticising the former agency for showing too much of the violence of war.

One very amusing aspect is the competitive slogans. 'Weapons of mass destruction' had moved to 'Liberation of Iraq' and now 'Iraq after Saddam'. My, oh my, what a play of words. The slogans that is missing very much is 'Where are the damn weapons of mass destruction?''.

All I can say is that my respect for these two channels have gone down steep. These channels are no different then many government controlled medias around the globe. So the next time they condemn media liberalisation and ethics of others, they should look at their own backyard first.