MRC Study: As Surge Succeeds, Iraq News Gets Rarer

Photo of Rich Noyes.
  • Bookmark and Share

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."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

"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.

Stories on three evening newscastsVanishing 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. 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 noted 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."

For three years, the establishment media — particularly the big broadcast networks — have inundated Americans with the bad news from Iraq. Now that our military is making obvious progress against a dangerous enemy, such important news should be shouted from the rooftops, not buried. Indeed, the success of the U.S. surge in Iraq may wind up being the biggest news of the year.

—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.


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.

But that is still

"...four attacks a day, on average..."

Shoot! I can top that any day of the week!

heldmyw

Detroit

 

Admit it!

For the MSM to even say that the war is improving means the war is REALLY improving. But, just as with all things proved true, they'll never admit them. Many of them still defend Alger Hiss and the commies of the 50's. "Liberals" are sick!

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

  The really big news from

  The really big news from Iraq is that Al Queda in Iraq is defeated.  The people of Iraq have turned against them.  This war was going to be won by the side that won the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.  The terrorists use of murder, kidnapping, and torture was not a winning combination.

CLARIFICATION: For any liberals that may be reading this.  By terrorists I am not referring to any of the Coalition Forces.  I'm talking about the group that you would know as Freedom Fighters that are fighting against the American Occupation.

Liberal Candidates distancing themselves from Iraq

It seems ironic that liberal dems are falling over themselves to distance themselves from Iraq at a time when the effort there is really succeeding. I predict that before the history is written on the Iraq war, Bill Clinton will claim not only to have supported it, but actually STARTED IT.

In the immortal words of JFK (John Kerry on the Persian Gulf War): "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

what did you expect?

The story line is: Bush = Hitler, Iraq is a quagmire, military people are poor uneducated psycho loser baby killing rapists.

If the real news doesn't support the story line it just gets buried. The idea of soldiers building schools and hosptials, and the locals smiling and hugging the troops, ... well we can't have Americans seeing that! It might vendicate President Bush. Can't have that.

No more quagmire

The best benefit is that no one calls Iraq a quagmire anymore. Time to retire that word.

Winning in Iraq bad for D's

As the democrats themselves have recently said, "A victory in Iraq would be very bad for us."

Their instructions to the MSM: "Play down Iraq while things are going well for the civilians of Iraq and the US military. If things begin to go bad, then talk about that endlessly."

And the MSM bow to their political masters and do as they are told.