I feel compelled to respond to the rather superficial, if not outright misrepresentation of facts in Disappointed's letter to malaysiakini, 'US press not exactly living up to tradition'.

First and foremost, Disappointed made a grievous mistake by equating the current political party owned and government-controlled Malaysian printed press with the scheme of press ownership in the US.

While it is true that certain press houses in the US adopt a particular a political stand - with the New York Times being more 'liberal' in the grouping of nationwide newspapers, and the Washington Times being the bastion of conservative politics - there is no direct and blatant ownership by or on behalf of any US-based political parties.

Such ownership is frowned upon and indeed in many instances would be called into question by various free speech interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, and legal bodies such as the Federal Communications Commission. The Supreme Court would definitely find such ownership a true violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

The onus is not solely on the Americans to show that the US press is free, as suggested by Disappointed, but on everyone who wish for a free press. To cast aspersions on press freedom in the US and its founding principles to justify the current state of affairs in the much hobbled and morally delegitimised Malaysian press is misguided.

Let us not forget that the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury, and even what we would expect from the less than liberal press, the Houston Chronicle, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, in many editorials, have all called into question the Bush administration rationale in going to war in Iraq. The New York Times had published numerous articles on reasoned dissenting voices on the war, and no less, more vitriolic ones by other newspaper organisations.

Second, it is true that America is shocked and has reacted in ways unimaginable since Sept 11. However there are legal guardians of the free press in the US that guards against excessive government intrusion into censorship and outright untruthful propaganda. The curtailing of press freedom in the US did happen during World War II. However, for the US to go back to past press restrictions and censorship in the war against armed religious extremism is almost impossible and most improbable.

While Disappointed may not like the breadth and depth of war coverage by the American press in general, this should in no way impugn the very system that guarantees a large degree of news reporting and analysis free of government dictation, official censorship. Let us not forget that the free market in a capitalist society insists on concise, precise, and impartial news reporting.

Third, it is blatantly untrue that the American press did not show any "pictures, either on television or papers" of American soldiers killed or captured. I have seen those pictures, vile as they are. Perhaps Disappointed watched too much of the Fox media coverage? Certainly CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC-America, Bloomberg, and CNBC, have shown those pictures. Disappointed's complaints on the lack of gruesome images of injured and dead confuses social etiquette and values, with news reporting relevancy.

What really bothered me most is the superficiality of the various examples put forth by Disappointed, to the point of making errors in conclusion and judgement in using the Iraqi war coverage as an example. The real issue isn't about showing graphic pictures, or how many Iraqi dead we had seen on television or newsprint, or making extreme hyperbolic rhetoric, but engagement in a reasoned debate of the issues by putting forth various relevant points of view on the issue. The American press, printed or electronic, for all its justified failings, does that only too well and at times it went too far.

The tone and rather disappointing view points expressed by Disappointed is not uncommon by many who do not understand the underpinnings of a free press. It is one of distrust and disbelieve of a system that can be 'objective' and free of government insidious encumbrances. Why is there so little faith on truly objective analysis, but instead one draws badly thought out sui generis arguments and worse yet, peppered the arguments with misrepresented facts to suit one's ideological bent? Isn't what Disappointed had written a spin, too, (as is mine to be fair) and a highly biased political one at that, which Disappointed so dread?

Press freedom does mean there is freedom to 'spin', and in the more responsible press houses, the spin is called into question by the journalists and editors in various articles and analysis. We have seen how this was played out throughout the history of the development of the American press. And often the spin is merely ancillary, if not discarded to the heaps of historical junkyard, to the real story which we in the present would call historical fact.

And lest Disappointed forgets, America is at a war against a largely disparate group of people who have taken up a religious faith into an extreme debasement - to which no reasoning can be had, nor, compromise can be sought.

And yet, the news as reported in the US is relatively free, mostly unbiased, if not somewhat sanitised, and more to the point, the freedom to exercise free speech for all is guaranteed, by law and custom. The system is not perfect, but not for the flimsy polemic reasons Disappointed have put forth.