It's good news, so there's less of it
Rocky Mountain News
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
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.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
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
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
titancain writes:
The fact is, most people despise Bush and his war. Who cares if the rightwing media is doing well finacially? Looks like the MSM won you idiots.
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
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
The surge was meant to reduce violence and allow for the different Iraqi political factions to have reconcillation. While violence is down, there has been no political reconcillation. There has been no progress on the political front. So to say the surge has succeeded is incorrect. The goals of the surge have not been meant, and therefor the surge is still a failure. Also while some reduction in violence may be due to the increase of American troops. It's hardly the only factor. The truce between the sunni adn shiites militias is also a factor. If the truce fails, then violence will surely sky-rocket.
July 8, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
IraqVet, while I sympathize with your need to believe your buddies died for a just cause, the fact is they didn't. The Bush admin. lied to all of us, you soldiers included. How do I know they lied? Because their actions tell us they did. If the reason to invade was to prevent the imminent threat of Saddanm attacking us with WMDs, why did Bush order the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq? Hans Blix told Bush he needed 2 more months to complete their investigations in 2003. They'd have the entire country nailed down in 2 months time. If the reason for war was WMD, why not give them 2 months to complete their investigation? The only reason is that if no WMD's were found, there would be no reason for war. Bush wanted war and couldn't allow the weapons inspectors to take that away.
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
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
Froward, where did you get your information on Iraqi's voting on the US to leave? I have searched for it and the closest I come to anything relevant is from 2006 and a poll by Think Progress.
Help a brother out...
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
8:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
HistoryBuff, you obviously aren't. First of all, the bi-partisan phase 2 report from the senate intelligence committee documented Bush's deceit. They made claims not supported by the intelligence they had. So yeah they lied, it's documented. Of course facts are meaningless to victims of BDS (Bush Denial Syndrome), such as yourself HistoryBuff. As for the rest of your post, talk about nonsensical. If the UN weapons inspectors were finding no weapons, as they were. If the whole reason to invade was WMD's, as was the claims made by the Bush admin. If Hans Blix needed only two more months to document that Iraq had no WMD's, then there was no reason to start a needless war. If the reason to invade was WMD's, assuring there were none would accomplish our security goals. Of course I don't expect you BDS victims to understand that. You just keep telling yourself that everyone is a liar but Bush. The rest of us living in the real world are moving on. Enjoy your dustbin of history.
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 8, 2008
9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Conservativeslayer writes:
OH Historybuff, you make me laugh. You are completely wrong on the phase 2 report, and you know it. Here's the findings
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
Yes Historybuff, they lied and thousands died. That you have no problem with that speaks volumes about you. Also that you fail to admit the truth, even when confronted with it, shows you are living in denial of reality. Go get yourself some mental help.
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
CheapEnergyNow 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!