Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq...

[Henry Hawk]

One year ago, liberal journalists depicted the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq as a certain failure. "A lot of people are going to go to bed tonight terrified," MSNBC's Chris Matthews opined just minutes after President Bush announced the policy on January 10, 2007. Other journalists were only slightly more subtle. "Many experts warn, it's too little, too late," NBC's Jim Miklaszewski argued on the January 8, 2007 Nightly News. The next morning on NBC's Today, the network's graphic describing Iraq was "Lost Cause?"

At the same time, leading Democrats left themselves no wiggle room as they, too, denounced the surge. Senator Barack Obama called it "wrong-headed" and countered with a proposal to pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Iraq by March 2008. Senator Hillary Clinton came back from a quick trip to Iraq to declare: "I am opposed to this escalation," while another Democratic candidate, Senator Joe Biden, blasted the troop surge as "a tragic mistake."

One year later, the President's surge strategy is well on its way to succeeding. The Iraqi parliament has passed several laws meeting required political reconciliation benchmarks. Attacks in Baghdad have fallen up to 80 percent in the past twelve months, Reuters reported February 16. Deaths among Iraqi military forces and civilians have dropped by more than two-thirds, from more than 2,000 per month in early 2007 to fewer than 600 per month since November.

And U.S. military deaths have also declined, falling from 126 in May 2007 to 40 in January 2008 and just 29 so far in February, with two days left in the month. Yet this good news seems to have diminished the media elite's interest in broadcasting any news from Iraq.

MRC intern Lyndsi Thomas helped tabulate all ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories about Iraq since the beginning of 2007, just as the surge strategy was being implemented. After heavy coverage of the shift to a new Iraq policy in January and February 2007, the TV coverage began to closely track the rising and falling death rates for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. When the number of U.S. fatalities jumped in May, TV coverage jumped, too. When U.S. casualties began to steadily decline, TV coverage of Iraq dramatically decreased. (See chart.)

While the amount of coverage has shriveled, the tone remains more negative than positive. So far this month, the three evening newscasts have aired just 41 items on Iraq, most (23) just brief items read by the anchor. A mere seven stories were field reports from Iraq. Only ABC's World News (February 13) noted the passage of key legislation by the Iraqi parliament, followed by a unique story the next evening on the success of the surge. The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News offered no such stories in February, but NBC did find time to report a visit to Iraq by actress Angelina Jolie.

Back in December, NBC's Tim Russert conceded that the media were less interested in covering a successful U.S. mission in Iraq, telling anchor Brian Williams that "with the surge in Iraq and the level of American deaths declining, it is off the front pages."

This is not neutral news judgment, but a great favor to anti-surge Democrats, since TV's lack of interest in Iraq spares them the chore of defending their now-discredited opposition to the surge. Does anyone think the media would have let John McCain off the hook had the surge failed as spectacularly as it has succeeded?

[C91]

Yet the civilian body count is on the increase.  So I guess as long as it's only the white people not getting killed, the surge is "working".

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/enforced-security/

[Henry Hawk]

the iraqi death rate is down, AFTER the surge...quite considerably.....

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx

so NO!!..it NOT JUST white people not getting killed C!...

[Gryphon]

Back in December, NBC's Tim Russert conceded that the media were less interested in covering a successful U.S. mission in Iraq, telling anchor Brian Williams that "with the surge in Iraq and the level of American deaths declining, it is off the front pages."



welll...duh! I mean, we'd all love to see a headline that said "No one was killed in Iraq today!" but that aint news.

[C91]

the iraqi death rate is down, AFTER the surge...quite considerably.....

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx

so NO!!..it NOT JUST white people not getting killed C!...

Your stats show an uptick in civilian deaths already in 2008.  Not a good omen for the vaunted "surge"

[Henry Hawk]

Your stats show an uptick in civilian deaths already in 2008.  Not a good omen for the vaunted "surge"

THERE WAS 1000 TO 3000 A MONTH BEFORE THE SURGE....

the surge, without a doubt has decreased the deaths for the violent death rate for iraqis over the last two years...and it is not an uptick from a year ago or even two years ago.....

[C91]

THERE WAS 1000 TO 3000 A MONTH BEFORE THE SURGE....

And the dramatic decrease was noted after the military started cooking the books.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14801520/

[Monroe]

The surge has had a lot of positive effects in Iraq.  It coincided with the Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda with the two events supporting each other.   Al Qaeda fled or was driven from many places and remains on the run, on the defensive, and facing the likelyhood of defeat in Iraq.  Deaths are down.  The "civil war" has subsided, especially with the Shiites, except for some, maintaining a cease fire.  S what passes for a Federal government in Iraq has moved to address some of the political problems facing that country, some of the so called milestones.   

All this is undisputed except in the lunatic fringe, some of whom are represented on this forum.  All of this is good news to people of good faith.  Some people refuse to believe it, don't want to believe, even recoil in horror at the possibility of anything but disaster in Iraq. 

Good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats who declared the failure of the surge before it took effect and rushed to declare defeat and surrender, all from their hate for Bush and their lust for power, American safety and success be damned.   So they like to ignore or deny the news. 

[IYT]

All this is undisputed except in the lunatic fringe, some of whom are represented on this forum. 

Thanks for acknowledging me.
I would agree that the surge has worked.  No news is good news, right?  It will be interesting with al sadr declaring an end to the cease fire to see if violence goes back up.  That will be proof in the pudding, for me at least.  Despite these views, invading Iraq was the reddest of all herrings, to quote Ron Paul.     

[Monroe]

So, IYT, I understand you are self identifying as "lunatic fringe". It's good to be clear about things.

I think Al Sadar is extending the cease fire.  It is in his interest.  They should have killed the SOB in '03.

[IYT]

So, IYT, I understand you are self identifying as "lunatic fringe". It's good to be clear about things.

I think Al Sadar is extending the cease fire.  It is in his interest.  They should have killed the SOB in '03.

Had you known me back in the day, you would know what IYT stands for, the I being for insane, so yes to the typical internet stranger, I am on the lunatic fringe.  I guess we'll see about the cease fire...or will we?

[Palehorse]

Had you known me back in the day, you would know what IYT stands for, . . .

I know! 

[Monroe]

Had you known me back in the day, you would know what IYT stands for, the I being for insane, so yes to the typical internet stranger, I am on the lunatic fringe.  I guess we'll see about the cease fire...or will we?

Either way, let us remain tranquil.

[IYT]

Either way, let us remain tranquil.

Yes.  It's my mental yinyang .

[followsthewolf]

I find you tranquil, but with a piquant bouquet of refreshing insanity.

So rare in a society that is taking itself so seriously.