Who is the Media Cheering For?

I just caught the end of a war report on the television news. The reporter said, "Their forces are down, but not out. Their hope is that they can fall back, reorganize, and come back stronger than ever." Was the reporter talking about American forces or those who oppose them? Because we all know the David-versus-Goliath script that our media reports from, you won't be surprised to learn that the reporter was talking about al Sadr's forces in Karbala. But notice the tone. Instead of cheering their defeat, the reporter's message was that they can, like the fighter Rocky, make a comeback. This wasn't heard on Al Jazeera, by the way, but on Fox News, the right-wing scourge of the airways. The reporter probably didn't even consciously realized the hope he was expressing. The underdog role is so well-defined that when the underdog (those who oppose America) suffers a defeat, the media's message is that they will fight even harder now. When the giant (America) suffers even a minor setback, the message is that this is just the beginning of the end. Facts have proven this scenario wrong time and time again. The Taliban isn't coming back. Saddam isn't coming back. Once defeated, al Sadr (a much smaller problem) isn't coming back. I don't even think bin Laden is ever coming back except in the form of ever more deranged messages to the press. When will the hard facts of reality get the media to change their message? If these people were really reporters, they would just stop at the facts (Al Sadr's forces have suffered a defeat.) rather than adding plot points from the same old script, predicting a future that never arrives.