Instapundit links approvingly to this Ed Morrissey post, which claims, without documentation, that "the media" failed to provide context for the fighting in Basra, instead reporting it as a "spontaneous eruption of rebellion."
In fact, prominent media reports did provide context and background. One handy place to see this is Paul Kiel's round-up/analysis piece from last week, which draws on reporting from several major media outlets.
From an early story in the NYT: "In the weeks leading up to the operation, Iraqi officials indicated that part of the operation would be aimed at the Fadhila groups, which are widely believed to be in control of Basra’s lucrative port operations and other parts of the city. The ports have been plagued by corruption, draining revenue that could flow to the central and local governments. But the operation also threatens the Mahdi Army’s strongholds in Basra." That's hardly a report of "spontaneous eruption."
Examples contrary to Morrissey's blanket statement abound. His sweeping indictment is, to use a phrase still favored by cranky old farts like me, objectively untrue. The credibility of the corporate media is open to question; so is the credibility of people who question it.