Fox Focuses on MRC Study of Declining MSM Iraq Coverage

Photo of Mark Finkelstein.
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
December 23, 2007 - 11:13 ET

A recent study, "Good News = Less News on Iraq War," by Rich Noyes, the Research Director of Media Research Center, NB's parent organization, revealed that coverage of Iraq by the big three evening newscasts has declined as the news from Iraq has improved. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace highlighted the MRC study during his interview of General David Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq .

CHRIS WALLACE: It seemed to us that you hadn't been in the news much recently, which probably is a good thing from your point of view, since you came back from Washington in September. But we decided to check it out, and the Media Research Center says that the three network evening newscasts did 178 stories on Iraq in September, when you were here, that in October as the surge took hold there were 108 stories, and that in November that dropped to just 68. General, any thoughts about why success in Iraq isn't news here at home?

View video here.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 

Cynical folks, such as those of us here at NB, might think the MSM has buried the good news from Iraq because they don't want to run stories that would tend to reflect well on the Bush administration, the military and Republican candidates who have supported our efforts in Iraq.

 

But General Petraeus took the high road.

DAVID PETRAEUS: Clearly there are other more newsworthy items: the political campaign issues in the states understandably ; challenges in Pakistan and other places. And so, as you note, probably this is a sign of progress. In a sense, no news is good news. In fact actually there was one nightly news show a week or so ago that said that "the news from Iraq is that there is no news." There were no attacks in a certain area or something like this. And so, we're not reluctant to see that. The only reluctance would be that America continue to remember its soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians who are serving out here in this very important endeavor.

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm not surprised

December 23, 2007 - 11:40 ET by flynmudd

it only leads when it bleeds.  The press hates it when we are winning against our enemies.

Who drives the news?

December 23, 2007 - 12:04 ET by Bacchus

Clearly, it was the Democrats that drove dire Iraq headlines for as long as they could, until they could no more. The decline in Iraq reporting since "Betray Us, Petraeus" is due to the undeniable success of the surge and the Dems clamming up. Alas, some news services haven't stopped trying to stir up emotions.

Surfing around on the milblog websites finds lots of upbeat reporting from Iraq. Send the doubters there.

And it makes me wonder...

December 23, 2007 - 12:06 ET by sentforth5

I noticed that in the past Gen. Petraeus has done like momma sez- nothing nice to say; say nothing...it could be his self respect and how he upholds his military position, but maybe someday when all this Iraq biz is settled, just maybe we'll see him run for a senate seat or more...I don't think Dwight Eisenhower was a political figure at first...I just wonder... he may not want to nip at any fingers.

Wallace actually asked him

December 23, 2007 - 12:08 ET by Mark Finkelstein

Wallace actually asked him about that and he endorsed the Shermanesque statement about not serving if elected.

Hi Mark!

December 23, 2007 - 12:20 ET by sentforth5

Yeah...he says that now...

No lib/Dem wants to hear

December 23, 2007 - 12:52 ET by dscott

No lib/Dem wants to hear that the military is far more successful at bring peace and security than they are.  If al Qaeda can't hold up their end of the bargain, then the MSM is not either, so they just drop the subject and move on to some other strategy that may be more successful in pushing the lib agenda.   In keeping with being informed with the facts: http://icasualties.org/oif/  check out the charts down the page.  Do it for yourself because the MSM will not do it for you, if it doesn't fit their agenda, it's not their job to report facts that aren't relevant to the story line.   btw-if you have ever been involved in a court case, the same tactics are used, now you know where the MSM got this from.   It's called obfuscation, the triumph of subjective truth over objective truth.  Hence a lie is only a misunderstood POV.

 

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

They are leaving public

December 23, 2007 - 13:18 ET by jpm100

They are leaving public opinion on hold. They've trained much of the public to think its a "quagmire" and that won't change unless the public is exposed to a substantial amount of opposing evidence. The MSM is not allowing that to happen. They are freezing the public's opinion in time.