News Coverage, Interest on Iraq Plummet in January
Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 12:55PM Which came first, the lack of interest in Iraq or the lack of news coverage in Iraq? The Pew Research Center doesn't say, but the media has complete control over what is and is not reported, except in the blogosphere and outlets like the Pentagon Channel. It’s easy to assume that the coverage is the horse pulling the cart of public interest.
How many times have you searched the MSM for Iraq coverage and found nothing in the past several months? Me, too. The reason is clear:
The race for the presidency started in the summer of 2007 because Democrats were hoping to God to capitalize on the tough situation in Iraq. They had to hurry up before the progress of the surge proved their defeatist rhetoric wrong and they could hardly wait to run a campaign based on the so-called failure of the Bush policy in Iraq.
All that changed when it was clear that, despite their best efforts to insist GEN Petraeus was a Bush administration front man and the surge in Iraq was a failure, things actually started improving in Iraq. The economy picked up. Iraqis turned against al-Qaeda toward the Iraqi government and Coalition Forces. Major provinces are back under Iraqi control. Millions of Iraqis began to feel safe enough to venture to the infamous Baghdad Zoo, go to market or the park with their families. Still a war, Iraq began to smell like victory.
So why the lack of interest in Iraq? What news is there to report, after all, when a country that limped under a brutal dictator for decades was finally turning into a thriving Democracy? </sarcasm> So the MSM turned its spotlight to their co-conspirators against the war, i.e., the Democrats, and the Presidential race became the sexiest thing on MSNBC and CNN since the suicide bomber.
To be fair, Iraq did make the news last week when two mentally retarded Iraqi women were duped into being suicide bombers, pointing toward a desperate and floundering insurgency and al-Qaeda in Iraq. But the MSM left out the last part. Oopsie.
So which came first, the lack of newsworthy items to report in Iraq of the lack of media coverage in Iraq? You decide.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1530091
08 Elections, Iraq, Media 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (27)
IF It Bleeds It Leads...
The MSM seems to never let us down on their predictability.
AubreyJ.........
I am begining to think that many in the media and the Democratic party understand that we are going to be in Iraq for a long time and how important Iraq is to the United States and the Middle East. Of course thwy have abdicated all responsibility in regards to Iraq and merely view it as Bush's war. Some far off event to be used to gain votes and hurt Republicans, that's when they bother to discuss it at all. I will say this about a McCain nomination, it could bring the surge and the very real proposition that Al Qaeda will be defeated in the heart of the Middle East back into the election. I was thinking of Romney and McCain teamed up, imagine McCain as point man for Iraq and terrorism, and Romney as the domestic expert.
Well the good news about this all is: Obama's message is still, "I did not vote for this" and Bring all the troops home now"
Funny thing is, I can't seem to find any other positions he has? i only bring Obama up because he does not offer a alternative and I can't seem to see the "O" factor in his message. Does anyone feel he's trying to be a preacher?
Also how funny is it, the MSM lack of successes. And no mention of democrat sureenders and the consequences!
Actually, dtodeen, I was going to write an entry about this. Obama IS a preacher. He attracts the secularists, unchurched of the Democratic party and makes them feel like they're part of something spiritual. It is a religious movement you see in the Obama campaign, which is why you see such ferver in it.
CNN: Clinton Nomination Network
Amy, that is an excellent point. The "UNCHURCHED" I'd love to read your take!
CalPatriot, they like Obama too, yes? And McCain. Go figure!
dtodeen, well, then I'll make sure I post it soon. :)
AubreyJ, sadly, "if it bleeds it leads" is the reality of the news.
McCain/Obama Dream ticket.
Lieberman for McCain's sec of defense. You know it!
But then I can't see Christians voting for Romney. Although Mormans have always been knocking at the back door of Christianity.
I was torn about the war and agreeing that we should pull the troops out and then just yesterday, listening to a Christian program, they were talking about Hitler and the Holocaust and how we were forced into WWII.
Well, it got me thinking, we are in Iraq to prevent another dictator or in this case, group, from murdering more innocent people. They want world dominance and they want every living person that is not Muslim, dead. So, yes, we need to be there and not back down and/or give into the dems retarded rhetoric.
And of course, anything positive about the war is going to be avoided at all costs with the MSM. They cannot allow it or it will criple the Democratic strategy.
Oh L - Don't pretend Great Big America was forced into a WAR with Little Ole Saddam. You must not think much of America.
mudkitty, would you vote for a McCain/Obama ticket knowing McCain's support of the war in Iraq?
Leticia, excellent contemplation. The Middle East would have become even MORE dangerous with Saddam's heirs taking over in Iraq. Uday and Qusay were as if not more demonic than Saddam. There's no way the previous situation is superior to what is emerging in Iraq today.
If foreign fighters never entered Iraq again, the main problem Iraq would have would be violence like we have in our streets due to domestic criminals. Foreign fighters, fronted by either Iran or al-Qaeda, are causing the problems in Iraq today. Eventually they will be defeated.
I can across a video a couple days ago on another blog of Saddam's rule in Iraq and it was so brutal that there's no doubt we did the right thing if only on a humanitarian level. Flopping Aaces has the videos, 3 in a series, and they really ought to be viewed to put things in perspective. Saddam's reign was genocide on a huge scale.
Leticia, also, the comparison to Hitler isn't that far off. He was often compared to Hitler and he was a threat to his neighbors. That's why Saudi Arabia let us use their turf for Gulf War I... they were being threatened by Saddam.
Vote for McCain/Obama? Never in a million light years - you just don't recognize irony and satire when you see it do you, Amy?
Foreign fighters make up less than 3% of the insurgency in Iraq today, according to the Bush White House, Independent Intel, The Bush State Department, and The Bush Department of Defense - but don't take my word for it - go to the sources. That's up from 2% last year, according to the congressional testimony. But again, don't take my word for it - do your homework.
The comparison to Hitler trivializes the Holocaust, and is an insult to the 9 million people who died as a result, and to everyone related (by blood or friendship) to anyone, exponentially, who died as a result. You need to rethink your whole analogy. It's not going to win friends, or influence people, outside of your already existing, never expanding, echo-chamber.
Sometimes Amy, I really think you actually did just fall of the turnip truck. If not, there's coal where your heart should be.
Saddam Hussein modeled himself a great Arab Nationalist who would unite the Middle East under his banner. The doctrine of the Bath party was essentialy a way for different ethnic groups to transcend their differences and make common cause against Israel and their assorted enemies. In that way he was similar to Hitler in the Nationalist underpinings of his reign. Only later in the 1990's did he "find religon" as a weapon to rally support to him. Of course his crimes and tactics are interchangable with Stalin or Hitler. As for the Hussein dynasty, yes they would have been around a long time. Outside of Uday and Qusay, Saddam did not have to many young people in the upper tier of power. They would have still ran the country, and with oil at 90 dollars a barrel imagine that pleasent scenario.
Interest in Iraq plummets, while the American death toll rose in January.
I repeat, it trivializes the Holocaust to compare Saddam with Hitler. It's disgusting, in fact.
mudkitty,
War is something not to be taken lightly and at times it is the only way to stop tyranny, I believe Saddam falls under that category. I can almost guarantee that you will would welcome the help if it was you or your family being run by that type of dictatorship.
Amy was not trivializing the Holocaust, it was the comparison of Hitler and Saddam, they both tortured and brutally murdered innocent people.
Anyone not giving commentary to the surge success and the dramatic stop loss of casaulties in the last year as well as the stabilization of security in Iraq has no authoritative commentary on a spike in casualties in January. Obviously such a person is only interested in dead US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, which is grotesque.
Leticia...Hitler killed over 9 million people, and had the worlds most efficient army (at that time) marching across Europe and bombing London. If you can't tell the difference between a petty dictator, of which there are about 30 in the world, currently today, and Hitler, then yes, you not only are trivializing the Holocaust, but you insult every American who
fought and/or died for the cause during WW2.
Go, Leticia! Great comments.
Only people who don't have to live under a "petty dictator" would call him such. Saddam killed over a million people BEFORE WE STOPPED HIM.
I also would be careful speaking about "trivializing soldiers", coming from one who trivializes their best efforts in Iraq. Hypocrisy, anyone??
Hi, Amy.
Mudkitty is extremely arrogant in her belief that she knows all. She's been on just about every conservative blog I know of that doesn't moderate comments. At any rate, she made the statement that Christians wouldn't vote for Romney. Wrong again! I will be voting for Romney, and if McCain wins I will vote for him. I have no problem with Romney's religion. I don't vote based on the religion of a candidate, nor do most of the Christians I know.
I've read all the comments. No one here trivialized the people killed by Hitler. A murderous dictator is a murderous dictator whether he kills 6 hundred people or 6 million and it is for that reason that Saddam can be compared to Hitler! All dictators can be compared to one another because their mindsets are exactly the same. Personal power, total control of everyone, and expansion of their own territory is all they care about. They are always megalomaniacs with no exceptions.
Back to your post, Amy. It's obvious the majority of the MSM doesn't want to tell Americans about the progress being made. They hate Bush and will only publish stories that they believe will make him look bad. Those who blame Bush for Iraq are out to lunch. They conveniently overlook the fact that Bush alone did not make the decision to go into Iraq. Many others agreed with him, and even Hillary was for the war before she was against it, but to the Bush haters the truth is not what matters.
Gayle, well said.
Thanks Amy, I try.
Gayle, I hear you about mud. Obviously there's a problem... she reminds me of KEvron and his obsessive-compulsive disorder. But then, she is a liberal. I feel sorry for someone so consumed by hatred.
Rock on Leticia! The world needs more people like you and Gayle in it, that's for sure.
Another way to look at the graph is this:
The MSM is Over-reporting the campaign by 1/12,
and Under-reporting the stock market, HL, and Iraq by about 2/3.
It has the stimulus plan and Gaza about right.
Gayle;
Doncha know? What matters is Truthiness and The Narrative™. :-D
Yesterday in Iraq workers began rebuilding the Sammara dome. The blasting of which caused so much secterian fury, Man it ticks me off that the media ignores such events.
Amy, I deny that I hate conservatives and rightwingers (two different things.) But you can't deny that you hate liberals and democrats.
As for Gayle, she's been stalking me on rightwing sites for years now, trying to get me banned.
And I never wrote that "Christians" wouldn't vote for Romney - I said that evangelicals wont. Like DG's wife for example, she said on blog talk radio that she would never vote for Romney.