Theirs good news in Iraq! Why report it less! - Political Forum

Hotduck · #1 (**permalink**) 12-17-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

MRC Study: As Surge Succeeds and Casualty Rates Fall, ABC, CBS and NBC Lose Interest In Iraq War

Good News = Less News on Iraq War

Back in September, when General David Petraeus reported that the surge in U.S. troops had improved the security situation in Iraq, the big three broadcast networks were openly skeptical.

“Insurgent attacks are down from 170 in January to 120 in August,” ABC’s Terry McCarthy noted on the September 9 World News Sunday, the day before Petraeus testified before Congress. “But that is still four attacks a day, on average. Iraq remains a very violent place....Life in central Iraq is still deadly dangerous.”

“Victory is not at hand, not even in sight,” CBS’s David Martin similarly contended on the next night’s Evening News. On the NBC Nightly News, reporter Jim Maceda found it “palpably quiet” in an area of Iraq once controlled by Sunni insurgents, but “this is really an exception....That civil war as, again, as you get out of the capital of Baghdad, it is truly brewing. So this is really just a partial success for this surge so far.”

That was three months ago. Now, all three networks have become more optimistic in their on-ground reporting from the war zone, admitting that the surge in troops and new counterinsurgency tactics have reduced the violence. But as the news from the war front improves, a Media Research Center study finds ABC, CBS and NBC are less likely to tell viewers about it.

MRC researchers examined all 354 Iraq war stories that aired on the big three evening newscasts from September 1 through November 30, including weekends. That figure includes 234 field reports, plus 120 short headline items read by the news anchor.

■ Vanishing War. Back in September, as reporters voiced skepticism of General Petraeus’ progress report, the networks aired a total of 178 Iraq stories, or just under two per network per night. (See chart.) About one-fourth of those stories (42) were filed from Iraq itself, with most of the rest originating in Washington.

In October, TV’s war news fell by about 40 percent, to 108 stories, with the number of reports filed from Iraq itself falling to just 20, or less than one-fifth of all Iraq stories. By November, the networks aired a mere 68 stories, with only eleven (16%) actually from the war zone itself.

■ Pessimistic CBS. Of the three evening newscasts, ABC’s World News was the first to take serious note of the improving situation (back on October 1), and has offered the most stories (9 field reports, 7 from Iraq) detailing the progress. “Not only is there a huge increase in Iraqi citizens groups who are coming forward to help the Americans, but overall levels of violence have gone way down,” Terry McCarthy enthused on November 22. In a Thanksgiving week interview with President Bush, anchor Charles Gibson was congratulatory: “You took a lot of doubting and rather skeptical questions about the surge. I'll give you a chance to crow. Do you want to say I told you so?”

On NBC, reporter Tom Aspell filed five stories about progress, generally balancing good news with bad. “Refugees coming back to Baghdad are going to see a lot of changes. There are more people in the streets, shops are open and traffic everywhere,” Aspell noted November 27. “But it is still a dangerous city.”

For its part, the CBS Evening News has offered only three stories documenting the recent progress, just one from their reporter in Iraq, Lara Logan, on November 21. Five weeks earlier, Logan announced on NBC’s Tonight Show that the war was going “extremely badly, from my point of view.” Reality, she claimed, was “much worse than the picture, the image we even have of Iraq.” — Rich Noyes

You know I will not go into a whole rant about left wing media bias, and how those in the mainstream media-acting were acting like this war was lost before, it was. I just whish the media on both sides would realize how important getting the good and bad stories out their fairly is.

It is the people of the USA who will decide if this war is worth it or not, and it they are not getting both sides of the story then they cannot make and informed choice. That is why it is important for the media to talk about the victories in Iraq as well as the setbacks and losses.

It seams like some in the media can’t get over their hate for Bush, and refuse to except a storyline other then this war is lost. Just like some on the right side of the media could not except the fact that we had the wrong war plan at the beginning, and the dumb idea that this was going to be a cakewalk.

All admit many of the things I assumed about this war at the beginning were just plain wrong.

Now it seams as if those in the MSM can’t admit that they were wrong about the surge or at least give as much airtime as that did the mistakes.

LINK-http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20071204.asp

Doctor Webley · #2 (**permalink**) 01-18-2008, 04:46 PM

His point is simply that in WWII, the media would report positive facts, now its all negative.

Hotduck · #3 (**permalink**) 01-19-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Webley

His point is simply that in WWII, the media would report positive facts, now its all negative.

Exactly and I want some of the negative too the media has to do the best they can to be fair.

Because of the fact that the only way the USA can loose this war is if its people decide it’s not worth it, and if they don’t get a clear picture they cannot make a clear choice.

africanhope · #4 (**permalink**) 01-19-2008, 04:55 PM

First of all, many people's problem is not that violence is up or down, but that htere is violence at all - it is the reasons for hte war which is in serious doubt. Sending in more troops will ofcourse bring violence down, we saw that in SA, where the police was very successfull in reducing violence to almost nothing. Still the wrongfull system of Apartheied fell.

Violence as millions mark Ashura: World: Iraqi Dossier: News24

Secondly, hte violence is less in Baghdad, but the rest of the country seems to have s surge, in violence I mean.

AH

Hotduck · #5 (**permalink**) 01-20-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by africanhope

First of all, many people's problem is not that violence is up or down, but that htere is violence at all - it is the reasons for hte war which is in serious doubt. Sending in more troops will ofcourse bring violence down, we saw that in SA, where the police was very successfull in reducing violence to almost nothing. Still the wrongfull system of Apartheied fell.

Violence as millions mark Ashura: World: Iraqi Dossier: News24

Secondly, hte violence is less in Baghdad, but the rest of the country seems to have s surge, in violence I mean.

AH

Well it is a war but theirs no doubt that violence has dropped in ways no one thought it would, and that should be reported as much as the violence is

Grez · #6 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 06:13 AM

The fact that violence is down, things seem to be going decent is exactly why we don't hear much on it. Its an election year, and if lots were said that the war was going good it'd be horrible for democrats. Thats it, thats all there is to it. Thats exactly why the war isn't even the top priority in the current primaries. The media has focused itself on the not really even close to a recession, recession that we are having.