Bill is right- deaths and disaster are featured more prominently, but that is not because of an anti-military bias or because of a desire by those in the media that our Iraqi efforts fail. It is simply the nature of what is newsworthy.

An exaggerated dismissal - John knows that significant elements of bias exist and shape many narratives, yet he's selectively ignoring them in service of his point. One can neither say that "it's not because" or "it is solely because;" the reality is much more complex than that. As it is, I believe that it's perfectly reasonable to say that bias has a significant impact on the coverage of the war.

Look at your local news- when a car catches fire in downtown Morgantown during rush hour, it makes front page news. At the same time, you will not find any stories about the 40,000 other cars that didn't catch fire.

More exaggeration via metaphor - 40,000 other cars not catching fire certainly isn't newsworthy, agreed. But the installation of sewer systems and electrical grids in areas that have never had such luxuries, everyday stories of Iraqi bravery in the construction of a new society and the oft-remarkable cooperation between American forces and a large majority of Iraqis that are doing their best to press onward in the face of mortal threats from homicidal maniacs are slightly more newsworthy than his comparison of 40,000 unmolested autos in an American city. The environment in Iraq is a breeding ground for both riveting human interest stories as well as more subdued round-ups of historical changes to Iraqi society.

This doesn't even touch the fact that the national media has almost completely ignored the stories of heroism by American military personnel, with the few exceptions that either include approved domestic social narratives (women in combat) or posthumus recognition for an act of bravery striking enough to demand coverage (The Medal of Honor awarded to SFC Paul Smith). Are the unheralded stories of military heroism really comparable to unmolested cars? And are they really significantly less gripping or newsworthy than maniacs that routinely slaughter civilians for the express purpose of making news?

When Bill Clinton was immersed in an affair with an intern, the media didn't report on the hundreds of other interns Clinton didn't diddle. When the BTK killer was caught, the media didn't focus on the other 300 million people in the country who aren't serial killers.

Why? Is it because of an anti-car bias? An anti-intern bias? An anti-people bias? Of course not- it is because one event is news, the other is not.

Again, I disagree that "one event is news, the other is not" - the media largely defines what is "news," a definition strongly guided by the marketplace. That being said, I agree with an analagous point that Cole is driving at - that negative news is news that sells better. I've previously made this point to temper exclusively blaming media bias:

And while levying criticism, it's also important to note this aspect of the problem: whereas blogs are largely unconstrained by (financial) market forces and driven by their own ideological desire to include positive coverage, how do you sell mainstream papers with good news about potential peace accords and diminishing infant mortality rates? Prior to the election, I ran an experiment, posting an excerpt from one of Chrenkoff's "Good News from Iraq" round-ups immediately before a post that discussed the New York Times' missing explosives story.

Comments in the "discussion" under the positive post: 1.
Comments in the discussion under the negative post: 81.

Good or "not bad" news can be compelling (note Jim's excerpts from blogs), and ideology certainly plays a huge role in typical news coverage, but drama and the unquenchable human gravitation towards negativity are other reasons why major dailies have fallen into this grating pattern.

That being said, there are ways to present entertaining narratives beyond the media's front-page formula promoting routine acts of terror. And while Cole rightly points out that Chrenkoff's "good news" coverage is a round-up scoured from existing MSM coverage (though the other blogs that I mention largely are not), this point skips the context that Chrenkoff filters the odd positive gems from a sea of sensationalism and negativity. The media feeds the violence, the violence feeds the media, but at some point, one would hope that media professionals would embrace a sense of responsibility that contextualizes such reporting with regular overviews of the events taking place in Iraq that have much larger strategic implications, as well as human interest stories that may *gasp* happen to cooincide with (or at least not provide an ironic contrast to) US foreign policy goals.

And if you don't believe me, consider Voices of Iraq, a documentary completed by handing out video cameras to a large number of ordinary Iraqis while urging them to showcase the perspectives that MSM professionals are afraid to research for fear of kidnap or injury. One of the most telling scenes in the documentary centers around an explosive device set off near a US military vehicle. An amateur documentarian took footage of the scene, observing a group of waiting men that coalesced and celebrated as a hoard of MSM cameramen arrived to take their picture. The moment the media outlets completed their footage and left, the "spontaneous" celebration of the attack evaporated into thin air.

Those fighting America, a controlling Shiite majority or the successful institution of a pluralistic government count on the MSM's predictable leading coverage of their acts of violence as a lever to achieve political objectives. And while the media's portrayal of violence may be a manifestation of market forces that embrace sensationalism and negativity, as well as the legitimate newsworthiness of tragic death and grave security concerns, this paradigm stands apart from the fact that their selective tactical focus and auto-prioritization of such elements are NOT "because one event is news, the other is not," as "the other" events certainly are news. The media has a responsibility to give the public complete information and contextual analysis, and they are by-in-large not doing their job.

And a tangential effect of this dereliction is a serious disservice to US and Iraqi interests.