Shocking Phrases

I’ve been watching a fair amount of the news coverage of the war against Iraq on the major networks, and I’m constantly cringing at some of the terminology that the newscasters are using.
In addition to seeing the same video clips over and over, you hear the same phrases time and again. I really don’t understand why, when referring to protests, the reporters say “anti-war” for protests against the war and “supporting the troops” for protests in favor of the war (I think that’s what they’re trying to convey at least). I don’t see how these are mutually exclusive. I support our troops. I don’t want them to get injured or killed. I don’t want them to suffer, and I also oppose the war. I don’t think we, as a country, should be at war. So how would a reporter characterize me on the seemingly bi-polar scale?
Similarly, I hear reporters talk of “patriotism” as opposed to “dissent”. Again, I think I’m patriotic. I love the USA, but I also disagree with some of our policies. Doesn’t everyone? Don’t we have two major parties that are never fully satisfied? So if all people dissent, are there no patriots? That’s ridiculous.
A few nights ago, as the US bombed Baghdad, the use of the phrase “shock and awe” was out of control. I remember being similarly annoyed during the 1992 Olympics when gymnasts kept on “nailing the landing”. Reporters during the massive bomb campaign over Iraq must have said “shock and awe” hundreds of times. Sometimes they tried to mix it up with other nouns, but they almost always began with “shock” and ended with “awe”. Never once did I hear the adjective version: shocking and awful.