Self-Righteous Reporters and Their Cynical Work

So I’m watching the coverage of Saddam Hussein’s (search) capture, and I’m incredulous.

One network reporter asks, "Why did it take so long?" Another says, "But the far bigger fish, Usama bin Laden, remains at large." Still another talks about the White House's wishful thinking if it thinks this will make our troops in Iraq any more secure.

For a moment, I thought I was watching Pravda. No, just a smattering of some of the broadcast and news network reporting.

I know journalists as a bunch are supposed to be cynical, but does that give them license to be jerks?

Look, critical reporting is OK. Over-critical reporting is not. Saying saddam has been taken in doesn't mean you, as a journalist, are taken in reporting it. It's big news. It's good news. Report it.

It's just strange to me that the very people who lambasted this whole Iraqi freedom thing as a failure, because we didn't get the big cheese, didn't say “Boo” once we did get the big cheese.
Even Howard Dean (search) gave the president his due on this one.

For once, report the glass "is" half full. A threat to a region, a threat to our gone. Stop bemoaning weapons of mass destruction, and realize we found "the" weapon behind a whole lot of destruction.

Now, I don't expect Dan Rather (search) to lead with, "Ding-dong, the witch is dead." But to actually push a story on whether Saddam's being treated fairly and by international law standards? Come on!

The day will come when we capture Usama too, and I can see it now. Some will criticize the capture...wonder why it took so long. Maybe even fret whether we were too rough on the guy.

Leave it to a media that prides itself on being sticklers for righteousness to be so self-righteous that they’re more sticks in the mud.

Watch Neil Cavuto's Common Sense weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on Your World with Cavuto.