Media: Lose The Good News On Iraq

Sad but not surprising. The mainstream media can't control itself when bad news breaks - better to be first, than accurate. But good news out of Iraq ... hey, slow down, we'd hate to give the American public the wrong impression. Their rationale is made indefensible by their actions in any number of bad news stories out of Iraq, or anywhere else.

Comments

[Terry Gain]

Give 'em a break Dan. I'm sure that if this good news continues, and it will, they'll start reporting it - beginning in December 08. SurgeON.

[jj]

Pshaw on you, Dan. We've got Brittney losing her children, David Letterman being mean to Paris, speculation about Di being pregnant BEFORE she was "murdered", and numerous other VERY important front page stories along these lines. Why would you expect DRASTICALLY DECLINING CASUALTIES in Iraq to make the front pages?

Jesus, get a life, Dan.

[Captain Joe]

At least Howard Kurtz has the cajones to call the liberal press for what it is... an arm of the Donk party.

[Worst President Ever]

No, Robin Wright said one month doesn't make a trend. And the story was reported in the media:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100100133.html

[Worst President Ever]

is this what you call having the good news reported?

http://tinyurl.com/2w5xvr

[Terry Gain]

Nice try, second Worst Commenter Ever. Page 14 of the WP and not a sniff of the PAPER OF RECORD on the first 3 pages of your search. BTW, do you have Jimmy Carter's permission to use that name?

[Worst President Ever]

You mean this story?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html

[Terry Gain]

Worst Commenter Ever

So the news was carried on NYT World, not page 1 or even section A of NYT. And note the difference between the headline (they know their readership) and the story itself. Ebbs or falls precipitously. Which is it?

Try again. Only a flaming liberal can't see the media bias.

[Worst President Ever]

The original complaint was the Media didn't cover the story at all. Since that proved to be total, unmitigated BS, you're now apparently unhappy the media didn't print it with banner headlines on their front page.

Per month casualty totals have fluctuated over the war's 4+ years. Until you have a few months of casualties dropping each month, there's no trend and the media, to your apparent consternation, aren't going to treat it as a trend. Duh.

[Terry Gain]

The Duh is on you Worst Commenter. The complaint was not that they didn't treat it as a trend but that they didn't give it the same prominence they have given the bad news, month after month ad nauseum.

You may not understand it but a 50% reduction in casualties is not only news but big news. So where did the NYT bury the news- and under a misleading headline?

As to the trend, stay tuned. Those of you invested in defeat are in for a rough ride over the next year. You would be wise to celebrate every suicide bombing. There are going to be fewer and fewer of them.

[Worst President Ever]

Duh - you couldn't even figure out the Times had printed the story.

Duh - Try reading the headline from the page Dan linked to - the complaint was that the good news wasn't getting reported.

1. The story was covered in The Times, The Post, etc. etc.
2. Journalists don't know yet whether it's a trend or not. One month is not a trend.

What you really want is for the Media to call Iraq a success. You were pissed when they published anything that didn't present the war as a fabulous success for America - you know, not "printing the good news." Although you've probably been wrong about Iraq from Day 1, you're still deluded that you know more about what's going on there than journalists that cover it professionally.