Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

It's good news, so there's less of it

Rocky Mountain News

Published July 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Media consultant Andrew Tyndall confirms what many have noticed: The major television networks have scaled back their coverage of the Iraq war.

Is this a "If it doesn't bleed it doesn't lead" story? Or is it a "Good news is no news" story?

Violence is down considerably in Iraq since the U.S. troop surge last year. Under the old "if it bleeds it leads" principle of journalistic priorities, a cutback in coverage is to be expected.

On the other hand, doesn't Iraq's rescue from quagmire warrant coverage? No news may be good news, but success should be as newsworthy as failure. When Iraq was diving into civil war, it was news every evening. Now that the decline in violence has opened space for progress, albeit halting, toward national reconciliation, that is newsworthy, especially since the war has been a major issue in the presidential campaign.

Whatever the explanation for the coverage decline, it obviously tends to handicap Sen. John McCain, who supported the surge at the outset.

Comments

  • July 8, 2008

    5:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brian1973 writes:

    Who are you kidding?

    From day 1 the media has been about failure in Iraq. Remember when 3ID took a 1 day pause because the generals were worried about out-pacing the supply line? what did the "news" call that? oh yea a quagmire - and we weren't even to baghdad yet.

    And while it's not been as smooth a road as some had hoped it would be, we are finally nearing a point where the pullout can begin. Or at least a point where the pullout can begin to be planned

  • July 8, 2008

    6:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    anarchist writes:

    "Whatever the explanation for the coverage decline, it obviously tends to handicap Sen. John McCain, who supported the surge at the outset.", of course there is no media bias.

  • July 8, 2008

    6:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ItsJustme writes:

    "Is this a "If it doesn't bleed it doesn't lead" story? Or is it a "Good news is no news" story?"

    Of course it is neither. It is "This doesn't meet the MSM agenda."

    But you're the editor. Why aren't you assigning more reporters to write about this and put it on the front page? Are you so dependent on AP and Reuters that you have no one to do a story independently? Or does this go against your agenda, too? Of anyone, you're in a position to at least start to do something about it. Quit complaining and start reporting!

  • July 8, 2008

    6:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Jack_Bauer writes:

    Another reason for the fairness doctrine!!!! - right Nancy Pelosi?
    We need balance in the news media and this is a prime example. And our democratic representatives are worried about talk radio, geesh.
    If it benefits any right leaning politician it is not covered or buried in the travel section, if it benefits a left leaning politician it is front and center and the first story of the hour.

  • July 8, 2008

    7:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    IraqiVet_2003 writes:

    I think that this type of journalistic ignorance is a travesty. It matters not whether or not this is known practice, what matters is that the American people are receiving from their National Media one portrait of the war. Is it surprising that a majority of Americans want to bring the troops home? Is it surprising that Mr. Obama has surged to the all but crowned messiah of the new political age on the promise of ending the war?

    The media has a responsibility to REPORT the news. If the news is bad, report it. If the news is good report it. Let the American people decide for themselves what to think based on what they know. Don't tell them what to think and shield them from any alternative points of view. What is happening in Iraq now is possibly the most important story of the entire war. The surge has historic implications and should be seen for what it is. A major success. When John Murtha grudgingly admits it's success, the fact that it's not being reported on is a crime.

    Don't continue the pattern of insulting our troops and veterans of this war by ignoring the heroic good they have accomplished. End the media blackout of success in Iraq. Report. Report. Report. The American people are depending on you.

  • July 8, 2008

    8:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    krvus writes:

    Iraqi Vet 2003- first off- thanks for putting your behind on the line for all of us here! Semper Fi from a former Marine!
    Well, it's defnintely great that the surge has been working...but then again our lib media had to move on to other things- like A Rod and Madonna, that's the real news here! If it ain't gossip, or against the efforts in Iraq, then it's not news worthy. The media in my beloved USA will be the death of my beloved America and that's simply too bad.

  • July 8, 2008

    9:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    WestminsterJ writes:

    Brian1973- The media was in lock-step with Bush/Cheney in the early stages of the war. During the "fall" of Baghdad, the media couldn't gush enough. It wasn't until things started going south, with the looting of the museums and govt offices, that the coverage started going "negative".

  • July 8, 2008

    9:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Doug_Hill writes:

    For the same reason that when Dan Quayle had a brain cloud when suddenly asked to spell potato, he was lampooned by the media as a moron (a favorite media characterization of a Republican) and yet when Obama referred to "all 57 states," there was hardly notice -- certainly not a pillorying.  The media is sooo biased to the left, that nothing good may be said of a conservative policy.

  • July 8, 2008

    10:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    krvus writes:

    titancain,
    uuh, how do you bring Bush in on this one again?? What does he have to do with the media reporting on anything or the aformentioned article? Oh that's right, he probably controls the media too. Sorry.
    Bush's war? Ha- Hillary, Kerry, and a whole lot of others- not to mention entire nations as well were on board before they were not on board.
    You see here again, another person that has to bring Bush into something that didn't even mention him.....I'm not a Bush supporter- not even associated with any of these ridiculous parties that are killing our country. But I am really sick and tired of trying to see some good thoughts here and all a lot of you can do is slam Bush every day. There could be another Jon Benet article and you'd bring Bush in somehow.
    Guess it just shows that a lot of you have no logical thinking ability. Bush Stinks and Obama is the Messiah- that's all some of you can come up with. please.....

  • July 8, 2008

    10:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    farmboy writes:

    It's the same reason the major media didn't report on the fact that 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium were recently recovered in Iraq; the same stuff that Joe Wilson claimed was never there. They have such a grade school crush on Obama that they can't let an idea that Bush might have been right all along get in the way of it, particularly in an election year.

  • July 8, 2008

    11:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    WestminsterJ writes:

    krvus- Yeah, imagine bringing up Bush when the topic is Iraq.

  • July 8, 2008

    11:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    WestminsterJ writes:

    Sasquat- Sure Rush Limbaugh makes tons of money; so did Jerry Springer and Howard Stern. Your problem is that the majority of Americans regard Limbaugh and Fox News about the same way they regarded Springer, et al- as entertainers, nothing more. They will never be taken seriously by the majority the way you take them seriously. Never. You and your ilk will always be in the minority, and rightly so.

  • July 8, 2008

    11:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ollie writes:

    4100+ dead and 40,000 wounded US soldiers is good news?

  • July 8, 2008

    12:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Hank writes:

    farmboy "It's the same reason the major media didn't report on the fact that 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium were recently recovered in Iraq"

    They didn't? "500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says"
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq...

    But I guess real world facts don't matter when you can just make up your own.

  • July 8, 2008

    1:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    anarchist writes:

    Froward, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
    "all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months", "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.", all the troops out in 16 months, oh, except the ones i leave there.
    "I think the really GOOD news is of the Iraqi government voting to ask American soldiers to leave.", is obama a republican now? Must be, he wants troops there.

  • July 8, 2008

    2:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    IraqiVet_2003 writes:

    ollie writes:
    "4100+ dead and 40,000 wounded US soldiers is good news?"

    Sir, let me first illuminate you to a saying that all free men should remember:

    "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

    Pointing out the number of deaths in a war is not a logical way to prove the argument that the war is or is not worth it. 4,100+ dead in Iraq is a tragedy of epic proportions to the families that lost these fine young people. Nearly half a million young men died fighting for the allied cause in the second world war. Over a hundred thousand in the first world war. Over half a million in the Civil War. Over 25,000 fighting for our own independence.

    We get lost in numbers. We get so caught up in them that we fail to see the bigger picture. We get so caught up in our own view, that we fail to see anything else. Was this war the right war at the right time? History will tell us. Did we go about it perfectly from the get-go? I can tell you we did not. But we corrected our course, we changed tactics, we turned the tides and when that became apparent, the media stopped caring.

    I, for one, wish to not let those 4,100+ go down in history as having died in vain. But when their own National Media refuses to acknowledge the SUCCESSES as often as the failures of the cause that they fought so valiantly in, THAT is when I have a problem. If you'd rather have your own worldview validated by a complacent media, that's your right. But the right of the people to know the truth dies when the truth is buried on the back page.

  • July 8, 2008

    4:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mikevolpe writes:

    The media's cynical corruption is at its worst in its coverage of Iraq. When things were going bad it was endless. the New York Times had about 50 front page stories about Abu Ghraib. Now that violence has toned down we have almost nothing.

    Furthermore, the MSM is trying to make it seem as though what Obama needs is a policy adjustment. That is flat out dishonest. One candidate backed the surge and the other said it would fail. Period. That speaks for itself and if the media were honest at all that is what they would be saying. Here is how commented on that...

    http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2...

  • July 8, 2008

    4:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HistoryBuff writes:

    Conservative... slayer...

    I don't know a tactful way to say 'you are silly', so I'll just let it stand as that.

    You know Bush didn't lie. All the World's intelligence agencies representing Trillions of dollars of effort agreed that Saddam had WMDs. Saddam admitted that he attempted to project & maintain that lie. Obviously, he succeeded. And waiting two more months? As Bush said at the time, they wanted the invasion to happen in the cooler months... not the hotter months - so, don't wait.

    IraqVet, this Vietnam Vet counsels you to listen to wiser people...

  • July 8, 2008

    4:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ollie writes:

    Sorry IraqVet_2003, but I was drafted long before you were born and I served the fatigue.

  • July 8, 2008

    5:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ollie writes:

    Froward69 hit it on the head. Just who is controlling the media?

  • July 8, 2008

    8:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HistoryBuff writes:

    Conservative ... Slayer...

    Check UN resolution 1441.

    The Senate bi-partisan report phase II Did Not find willful deceit. It did find a lot of partisan disagreement characteristic of the
    political environment in 2007.

    Lastly, check the 30+ other countries that participated in the invasion, each with their own intelligence agencies... that came to the same conclusion that our's did, and Democratic & Republican oversight committees.

    I know, they're all liars... except liberal Democrats.

  • July 9, 2008

    12:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    cmcray1 writes:

    ..........We win.....

  • July 9, 2008

    7:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    News? What news? Everything I ever need to know I get from the Internet.

  • July 9, 2008

    8:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JCS1958 writes:

    It is sad when "not as bad as it used to be" is considered good news. Pitiful.

  • July 9, 2008

    1:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Newenergycommie writes:

    There was one man in the entire world that had the absolute power to prevent the war. Saddam Hussein. Had he complied with the UN, he could have been relaxing drinking a long neck instead he died from one. BTW my using the name Hussein is a reference to Saddam's actual name and is not a code word used to disparage Obama.

  • July 12, 2008

    8:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    No code word needed.

    His name is Borack Hussein Obama!

    NObama '08'

    Change....all that you will have in your pocket if he is elected!

    Nuff Said!