Now that times are difficult in Iraq, it’s easy for the media to claim they are simply reporting the bad news that is obvious to everyone. But how did networks such as CNN and MSNBC report more positive events? According to a new study by the MRC, overall, Fox News generated the most balanced coverage of news on the ground, while the other two cable networks consistently emphasized negative stories. FNC also displayed the highest enthusiasm on days such as June 8, when U.S. air strikes killed al-Qaeda in Iraq mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Over on MSNBC, while the anchors generally reported the event as good news, the network also chose that day to broadcast four stories on military deserters. On this seemingly happy occasion, CNN aired two reports on the already heavily hyped Haditha case.
To analyze the cable coverage of Iraq, MRC analysts examined both the 10am and 2pm EDT hours of live weekday news coverage, or 100 hours of news coverage for each network. They found a stark contrast between the coverage of MSNBC and CNN and that of FNC. This became particularly clear on days such as June 8. A few minutes after 2:30pm, just hours after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, MSNBC anchor Melissa Stark used the successful U.S. killing of the al-Qaeda leader as a seque into a more pessimistic topic:
Melissa Stark: "On this very successful day for the U.S. military with the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one U.S. soldier is refusing to deploy to Iraq. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada believes the Iraq war is morally wrong and a breach of American law."
A report on Watada followed. One might think that on such a happy day, one story on a U.S. deserter would be enough. Just a few minutes later, however, Stark introduced another similarly themed piece:
Stark: "Marine reservist Stephen Funk was the first U.S. serviceman to object to the Iraq war. He explained his discussion to NBC's Matt Lauer shortly after the war began."
MSNBC then played an extended clip from an appearance by Stephen Funk on the "Today" show. After touting this second soldier, the network followed up with two more reports, one on Gulf War deserters and another on Vietnam protests.
CNN didn’t fare much better on June 8. The cable channel brought on journalist and author Nir Rosen to present this gloomy assessment:
Nir Rosen: "Unfortunately, there's no good news in Iraq. There's no corner that's been turned, there's no milestone. The civil war began intensively in 2005, and it's continuing. This ethnic cleansing, Sunnis from Shia neighborhoods, Shias being expelled from Sunni neighborhoods, dead bodies on the street every day, tortured and killed because they're Sunni or because they're Shia. Events inside the Green Zone just don't really matter....The green zone is just a theater for people outside of Iraq. The militias are on the street in Iraq. They are the ones killing each other every day. And I just feel very depressed and hopeless. I think the civil war is going to intensify."
Again, keep in mind that this was broadcast just hours after a very successful military operation and in the wake of President Bush’s trip to Baghdad to meet with Prime Minister Maliki and his newly formed government. CNN also chose June 8 to file two reports on Haditha and the allegations that U.S. forces killed unarmed civilians. Correspondent John Roberts closed his report with a hyperbolic quote from Dartmouth College professor Aine Donovan:
Aine Donovan: "If Haditha proves true, it will be, unfortunately, and very sadly, the most memorable episode of this war."
FNC’s coverage that day generally proved to be the most enthusiastic. Anchor Jon Scott began the 10am hour by exclaiming the good news:
Jon Scott: "...The most-wanted man in Iraq has been killed in a U.S. air strike, in what turned out to be an unsafe house for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."
After an interview with Senator John McCain, Scott turned to co-anchor Brigitte Quinn and remarked, "It’s nice to have some good news to report out of Iraq." Quinn agreed, "Yeah, it sure is, Jon."
These are but a few examples of the media skewing coverage in Iraq. The full report can be found here. The overall conclusion from MRC analysts: FNC reported the good and the bad, while CNN and MSNBC accentuated the negative. The situation in Iraq may be grim now but for those two networks, pessimism has reigned for quite a while.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
...hence the vital need for N
December 20, 2006 - 18:05 ET by TruthMonger...hence the vital need for NEWSBUSTERS!
"Now that times are diff
December 20, 2006 - 18:16 ET by mattm"Now that times are difficult in Iraq..." This is a good post, and the full report is great, but when has it not been difficult times in Iraq?
For political reasons, personal hatred of Bush and a latent disdain for American military power and because of a basic ignorance of the nature of the enemy and their goal of world conquest, the Leftist media propagandizes for the terrorists, thus encouraging them.
No one ever said it would be easy or quick. Bush has always said this would be a long and difficult fight that would far outlast his presidency. So the fact of difficulties, bad news and grim situations is not an argument against continuing what we're doing, or that we never should have done what we're doing in the first place.
We can pull out of Iraq, but the war will continue, and we'll be in even more danger. We can quit the WOT and follow France's lead and within a generation kiss our Constitutional freedoms, and maybe even our asses, goodbye, or become Muslims or their slaves.
As long as there are evil tyrannical terrorists and misguided liberal media appeasers and political opportunists in the world, things will be difficult. The thing to do is accept that fact, and fight to the death-the bad-guy's death, that is.
You claim "No one ever said i
December 20, 2006 - 20:47 ET by crsheddYou claim "No one ever said it would be easy or quick."
From the April 1, 2003 USAToday http://www.usatoday....
"* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
"* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."
"* March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait."
That is exactly what they said, quick and easy.
crshedd, I'm a little confu
December 20, 2006 - 21:05 ET by hydrodynDMcrshedd,
I'm a little confused by that first quote from Rumsfeld's speach in Aviano, Italy. Reading through the transcript, it's seems to me (unless I'm being dense) that the six month prediction had to do with the actual military invasion of Iraq - which was completed on the order of months.
Am I missing something?
I think you are. This stateme
December 20, 2006 - 21:36 ET by crsheddI think you are. This statement wasn't from the speech, but in response from a soldier asking how long the National Guard and Reserves would be there. Rumsfeld further stated:
"So I would see this buildup going up, lasting for a period, and the last choice is war, but if that is necessary, a period (COMMENT: I ASSUME THIS IS THE NO LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS PREDICTED) where that takes place and then a drawdown. And you would find people moving back out and some residual number staying there, with the -- undoubtedly the forces of many other nations."
As a side note, I have a freind, 40 years old who just re-upped, who is being deployed to Iraq in June. He has been inactive for 12 years due to bad knees. He is expected to be there 18 months.
crshedd, I'm not sure. Righ
December 20, 2006 - 22:03 ET by hydrodynDMcrshedd,
I'm not sure. Right after his "six months" comment, he seems to be talking about the period after the initial invasion ("After that, we have a responsibility..."). He then makes the comment you quote. It might be this period of time (after the invasion is complete) that he is referring to when he says "a period where that takes place..." If so, he never makes a prediction about how long reconstruction would take.
The reason I looked this up is because I couldn't believe that anyone would predict that we could invade a nation, destroy it's governing body and then reconstruct the whole thing and pull all or most of our troops in in "six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Are you suggesting that that is what he meant?
You will pay for this "
December 21, 2006 - 10:32 ET by TruthMongerYou will pay for this "treachery of accurate quotations in context" over on DKOS as a mindnumbed, neo-con, chickenhawk bush-bot, my friend...
TruthMonger, "That is
December 21, 2006 - 12:06 ET by hydrodynDMTruthMonger,
"That is exactly what they said, quick and easy."
That's how crshedd ended that initial post and that's what prompted me to check. This stupid game of "quote gotcha" is tiresome. If you want to put together a argument and incorporate quotes as part of that argument (which would mean discussing the context and giving an interpretation of those quotes), then fine. But to just put up a set of quotes - with no discussion - is just lazy.
And in this case, I think it actually undermined crshedd's initial point. The article he pulled the quotes from was writen about 13 days into the start of the military operation. The author is obviously trying to use those quotes to make a comment about what they see as erroneous predictions made by the Bush administration about the initial invasion. If crshedd is suggesting that, in fact, they are actually predictions about the entire reconstruction process, he should argue it.
crshedd doesn't (which is a little shocking given that, by his - I'll assume "his" - sorry if I'm wrong on that - own words, he's a history teacher). Even in his response to my post, crshedd admists to having to make an assumption about what time period Rumsfeld is referring to.
Not so "quick and easy".
hydrodynDM,They'll be despera
December 21, 2006 - 12:29 ET by TruthMongerhydrodynDM,
They'll be desperate to vindicate their pro-Saddam stance for the rest of eternity...not a fun job to be sure...but you did a great job exposing the BS...!
Libs can't think beyond the i
December 21, 2006 - 12:45 ET by mattmLibs can't think beyond the initial level of argument. This is because their viewpoint dictates the facts, not the other way around. This is why they play games like "quote gotcha" and finger pointing, and scandal mongering and subject changing and deflection, etc. It's also why they invented history revisionism - to change the facts of history to suit their beliefs...which is why I have no doubt cshredd is a history teacher (sadly enough)...
Let us also not forget Bill C
December 21, 2006 - 10:33 ET by MikeBLet us also not forget Bill Clinton telling us that our troops would be in Kosovo only "until Christmas." Of course the Liar in Chief did not say which Christmas, now, did he?
The invasion and destruction of the Hussein regime did take only a matter of a few months. Immediately after that phase our soldiers were greeted by many as liberators; we had liberated them from the sadistic tyrany of Saddam Hussein. After that, things started going downhill, with our treasonous news media giving their full cooperation to the Islamists and broadcasting their propaganda to the world. Perhaps W was a bit naive in thinking that al Sadr and company would behave as civilized people instead of the barbarians they are, but that was naivete, not malice.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
...and this is just how far d
December 21, 2006 - 11:08 ET by TruthMonger...and this is just how far downhill it's gone, I'm afraid:
http://www.goodnewsiraq.com/index2.htm
So when an enemy of all that
December 22, 2006 - 16:09 ET by Andrew H.So when an enemy of all that is good, of freedom, of America--makes it tough, we should do what?
The premise of your and the left's chicken-shit position will put more Americans in danger. You don't believe it--but if the dims get their way, we'll all have a chance to see whether the enemy will stay away, won't we?
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
You're full of it. They wer
December 21, 2006 - 10:21 ET by mattmYou're full of it. They were talking about the military phase of ousting Hussein. I'm talking about the entire WOT, of which Iraq IS apart. You can knit-pick from your Left-wing armchair all you want. The fact is the jihad is real and we are its targets.
It's too bad there are so many politically motivated opposers out there who will allow America to be destroyed as long as it helps the Democrat Party.
In Iraq, the media’s biases
December 21, 2006 - 14:50 ET by waka wakaIn Iraq, the media’s biases happen to fit the circumstances. Being primed to consider any military conflict a quagmire and another Vietnam is a drawback when covering a successful U.S. military intervention, but not necessarily in Iraq. Most of the pessimistic warnings from the mainstream media have turned out to be right — that the initial invasion would be the easy part, that seeming turning points (the capture of Saddam, the elections, the killing of Zarqawi) were illusory, that the country was dissolving into a civil war.
...
The “good news” that conservatives have accused the media of not reporting has generally been pretty weak. The Iraqi elections were indeed major accomplishments. But the opening of schools and hospitals is not particularly newsworthy, at least not compared with American casualties and with sectarian attacks meant to bring Iraq down around everyone’s heads in a full-scale civil war. An old conservative chestnut has it that only four of Iraq’s 18 provinces are beset by violence. True, but those provinces include 40 percent of the population, as well as the capital city, where the battle over the country’s future is being waged.
In their distrust of the mainstream media, their defensiveness over President Bush and the war, and their understandable urge to buck up the nation’s will, many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it.
-- That no-good, terrorist appeaser Rich Lowry in that worthless liberal rag The National Review.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzM2MjAxZGIyMjgzMTQ0YTQ4NDk0YzYyNzVjMjE0NDI=
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
"...pessimistic warnings
December 21, 2006 - 17:58 ET by mattm"...pessimistic warnings...msm...right" That doesn't prove anything. Bush also warned that it would be difficult, therefore he was right. He also said to win we need to be unified, which also appears to be right.
The point here is that the MSM is making it MORE difficult by fueling the terrorist propaganda machine, which significantly helped their pessimistic predictions to come true-so far.
Ignorance has a well known liberal bias.
We have not been able to cele
December 20, 2006 - 19:26 ET by bigtimerWe have not been able to celebrate the fine work our military has done in the examples you gave...let alone the capture of Saddam...they are still making it sound as if he is a victim somehow on the leftist channels...it is treasonous to me.
Look what the media did to the President with the Mission Accomplished banner...it is getting so old....I for one will not bend and give in.
That is the plan though....tiresome, weariness, hence defeatism...that is what the enemy within has planned and executed well. I am thankful for the determination of this President and our fine, brave military.
Thank you to all that serve and your families....stay safe and Merry Christmas, and hopefully a fruitful New Year!
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Huh...an MRC study reveals ex
December 20, 2006 - 21:00 ET by balboaHuh...an MRC study reveals exactly what they expected it to...shocking.
... And the MSM got the reult
December 21, 2006 - 05:22 ET by Andrew H.... And the MSM got the reults in the mid-term elections they wanted--what now? Pelosi, Reid.
I still felt good about the kill--and look forward to many more.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Have any facts to refute it?
December 21, 2006 - 10:23 ET by mattmHave any facts to refute it? No? O.K. then, shut up.
Not any facts that you woul
December 21, 2006 - 16:00 ET by balboaNot any facts that you would acknowledge.
<gag>
December 21, 2006 - 17:59 ET by mattm<gag>
I'm just saying that a study
December 21, 2006 - 19:24 ET by balboaI'm just saying that a study by the MRC is most likely a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I bet they don't call him big
December 21, 2006 - 05:53 ET by Andrew H.I bet they don't call him big Al anymore.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Scott, great blog, If you rem
December 21, 2006 - 09:49 ET by newstalkmachineScott, great blog, If you remember, the day Zarqawi was killed, they went and found Nick Berg's father, Nick Berg was the contractor that was beheaded in Iraq, his dad was tied to that ANSWER group. They interviewed him and he said that he felt sorry for the mother of Zarqawi for her lost, and then, damn if he didn't blame George W. Bush for his "illegal" war in Iraq, and blamed Bush not Zarqawi for his son's death. 'Probably one of the worst 2 minutes I've ever seen in cable news.
Berg is a useful idiot.Libera
December 21, 2006 - 14:03 ET by Andrew H.Berg is a useful idiot.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.