One of the more commented-upon articles on this blog is one about Tim Robbins' play "Embedded", about the war in Iraq, in which I quoted Fox News:

Robbins portrays journalists as Pentagon puppets, U.S. soldiers as thieves and killers of innocent women and children, and the Bush cabinet as war mongers willing to start a war to escape the negative publicity of the Enron scandal....

I expected two rational kinds of disagreement from those who lean left, in no particular order: (1) "That's wrong: the play doesn't say that at all!", or (2) "Well, here is evidence that what Tim Robbins is saying is true..."

Instead, what I saw were mostly Robbins-supporters who seemed largely uninterested in any question of evidence -- and helping me correct my sad, media-brainwashed views -- but rather simply seemed overjoyed that "their view" was being represented. (Facts? Who needs facts?)

Hurrah Tim Robbins, for having the guts to do this play!! I can hardly wait to see it!!

(Hurrah for saying things which aren't true?)

And...

This is what is so threatening about this production to you. It's dangerously comedic grip around the throat of media misinformation.

Err, yes, of course. I know for a fact my views are nothing but "media misinformation" and am worried and fearful that this "media misinformation" might be threatened or go away! <>I fear your truth!

(Thus meanders the inevitable half-baked leftist dimestore psychoanalysis of my underlying motivations. Or what have you.)

So today it was refreshing to see someone say:

I actually saw the play in question, and I can honestly say... that the play was balance[d], did NOT make our soldiers look like killers and thieves, but did give a satirical look at both sides of the argument.

Wow! Someone responded with some kind of evidence! What an invigorating change of pace.

Of course, it might come as a suprise (or not) to learn the author of the comment claims to be a "card-carrying Republican". (You know how unbalanced those conservatives are: they never hear what the other side has to say, or consider opposing arguments as fairly as possible.)

Another (?) reviewer, responding to a similar article at ChronWatch, wrote this:

I actually saw the play in question... and even though I'm no Tim Robbins fan, I have to say I was shocked at how fair it really was, even for a liberal like Robbins. He really pays tribute to the soldiers out there, and the play itself was humorous and entertaining... not at all like Fox News described it. Kind of makes me question them now. I recommend anyone to see it for themselves...

So I wondered: Were initial reports overblown? Was Robbins' play "balanced"? Did it not depict the coverage as censored, our soldiers as murders and thieves, and the Bush cabinet as war mongers?

So I decided to do a bit more research. Did Robbins' soften it down? Wsd Fox's coverage badly biased? Is "Embedded" really even-handed?

Karen Weinstein reviewed the play last November. How even-handed was its depiction of the Bush administration, their process, and motives?

There is no question, the highpoints of Embedded are occupied by the advisors ["with names such as Rum-Rum, Gondola, Woof and Dick"], wearing stuffed shirts and 3/4 masks, sitting primly on stools, making decisions about when to invade by looking on their personal calendars and finding a mutually convenient date, ignoring details like military intelligence... At one point the advisors become so excited about bringing the invasion to a head that Rum-Rum grabs his crotch and squeals, "I’ve got a woody!" The other five, including Gondola, do the same.

Perhaps this is some new meaning of "balanced." Or perhaps this was a different version than the commenters saw. Or were leftist critics of the administration also portrayed in similarly hateful terms?

And what of allegations Robbins' contentions of press bias and censorship?

Between these poles are the journalists, about to be "embedded," and being trained marine style, brainwashed Washington style, and censored administration style.

Uh, yeah. That all happened.

Another article, at FearBush.com, remarks:

One of the play's chief characters is a Colonel Hardchannel who berates American journalists as maggots and tells them they must submit all reports to him. "If a Babylonian granary is bombed," he thunders, "it is to be called a poison factory."

I struggle to understand how such depictions could be central to a "fair" or "balanced" treatment of the motivations for the Iraqi war and it's coverage in the press.

So what's going on here? Are we grabbing the proverbial elephant by the tail and tusk and getting completely different answers? Or are the the positive reviewers not all they seem?

Perhaps one disconnect lies in the depiction of the soldiers. The Fox article reported that Robbins depicted them as killers of innocents and thieves. Others who have seen the play say it shows them kissing their wives goodbye and is very supportive of them:

Jen-Jen Ryan is the young soldier, child of a family that could not afford to send her to college without the military and who is injured in a vehicle crash. Familiar? Yes, art imitates life, this is Saving Private Lynch as Private Ryan. Hers is the one character who is fleshed out and she plays it with warmth and clarity, while also playing yet another part as a journalist.

But perhaps people are confusing emotional support for the soldiers with a "balanced" or "even-handed" view of the war. But that's silly. The leftist stance has always been that "we're not against the soldiers", but rather that the underlying purpose of the purpose of the war was something else than genuine concern for national security, and -- at least in Tim Robbin's case -- that the coverage we received was controlled and censored by the Bush administration and the military.

A truly balanced depiction would include elements highlighted by those who supported by war, such as liberal critics proclaiming, to national coverage, that they were being "censored", or cuts between scenes of torture at the hands of Saddam's henchmen and peace activists saying the Iraqis didn't want us to interfere and alleging Bush was Hitler. And probably less crotch-grabbing.

Undoubtedly my questions would be put to rest if I could see it myself, though I'm loathe to donate my hard-earned cash to Robbins. But from what I'm seeing, it still sounds to me like there's a serious disconnect between the central assertions of "Embedded" and the best evidence I'm able to obtain.