Media Bias in Full Display | Right Across the Atlantic

Log in

2012 May 18 |

|

0

0

Media Bias in Full Display

Nov 21

›

Posted by admin | 20 comments

As the situation in Iraq gets better, media coverage gets worse. Says the Pew Research Center:

News coverage of Iraq, like public interest in the situation there, is now significantly less than it was at the start of the year. In January, roughly a quarter of the overall newshole (26%) in newspapers, TV newscasts, websites and radio was devoted to news about Iraq. In October, the war received only half as much coverage on average (13%), according to data compiled by the Project for Excellence in Journalism‘s News Coverage Index.

Good news, of course, is less interesting. The cynics among us might also claim that the drop-off represents the media’s attempt to avoid eating humble pie.

Of the decline in public interest, Pew says this:

. . . public interest in news about the situation in Iraq is now less than it was earlier this year or in 2006. Since June, about 30% of the public, on average, said they have followed news about the situation in Iraq very closely. In 2006 and the first two months of this year, about 40% on average paid very close attention to Iraq news.

Democrats beware.

Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6187 ›

Michael van der Galiën Remarkable that. To a degree, good news is no news, of course. Having said that, something tells me they simply don't want to share good news. They decided that the surge was useless when it started and aren't quite willing to apologize for their mistakes. Ah, the MSM: if ever there were arrogant people...
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6165 ›

C Stanley Speaking of that, Michael, I'm wondering if those who insisted on calling the troop surge and strategy change an 'escalation' might now have a different opinion of it? ;-)
Posted by Tom

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6167 ›

Tom I suspect that people are just getting tired of news from Iraq; I know I am, and I was even before reports that things in Baghdad were improving. And don't forget that media is a business, and if a subject doesn't interest the public much then there's no reason to talk a lot about it. I think economics explains this situation better than politics.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6170 ›

Michael van der Galiën
2 C Stanley Speaking of that, Michael, I’m wondering if those who insisted on calling the troop surge and strategy change an ‘escalation’ might now have a different opinion of it?
Actually, I didn't change my mind that 'escalation / surge' regard. I do- and I've done that quite some time ago already - that my initial response / expectations of the surge were wrong... to a large degree.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6172 ›

C Stanley LOL, just thought it was a good opportunity to rib you about it. I still don't understand equating more troops with escalation, because the latter IMO has to also include increasing the scope of the war- ie, opening up new fronts (in this case, attacking Iran or something would obviously be an escalation- bringing troop levels up to where they needed to be to accomplish the existing goals would not). Tom: How can you be too tired of hearing about Iraq to want to hear about good news and hope for the Iraqis?
Posted by Tom

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6173 ›

Tom Christine- We've heard a lot of things about Iraq over the last 4 years, things both good and bad, predictions optimistic and pessimistic. It's just gone on too long, with too many disappointments... I don't think it's some sort of partisan plot to deny good news, I just think that this good news is coming along at a time when a kind of "Iraq fatigue" has set in.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6175 ›

C Stanley I think that's a sad statement, if true, Tom, that people could get so tired of hearing about problems in Iraq that they no longer care. For God's sake, those people have had to LIVE through hell, and we can't even care enough to continue hearing about it? If your point is that some earlier reports of progress and improvment have proved to be overstated, well, I can understand that to a degree. But check out Ed Morrisey's story today- he points out that there are enough people returning to Iraq now that there are convoys going in from Syria- AND those people are being told that they won't be able to get visas to return to Syria so they must have confidence that they're now going to be able to resume their lives in Iraq. That speaks volumes, and it's not just spin by prowar or proBush advocates.
Posted by Tom

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6177 ›

Tom Ever heard of "compassion fatigue"? You know, when people get burned out dealing with a given problem or set of problems? Well, I think that's happening with Iraq, especially given all the other bad things going on in the world...unrest in Pakistan, cyclone in Bangladesh, continued ethnic cleansing in Darfur, continued chaos in Somalia. And that doesn't even begin to address the domestic problems, such as a weakening housing market, rising oil prices, concerns about possible recession, continued controversy around illegal immigration...
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6179 ›

C Stanley Kind of odd that the compassion fatigue is setting in at a time when it's inconvenient for the antiwar crowd to talk about the news from Iraq though. I'm sure the timing is purely coincidental.
Posted by Tom

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6181 ›

Tom
. I’m sure the timing is purely coincidental.
Christine:
I suspect that people are just getting tired of news from Iraq; I know I am, and I was even beforereports that things in Baghdad were improving.
I know the timing looks suspicious, but I don't think there's any need to talk about vast left-wing conspiracies to deny good new from Iraq. Surely the anti-war crowd will be reluctant to discuss improvements in Iraq, but as for the rest of the public I do think it's just fatigue.
Posted by C Stanley

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6184 ›

C Stanley I wasn't implying a conspiracy, just something about the shared mentality of a certain segment of the left. I'm not claiming that there's an organized effort to prevent this information from getting out, just that a great number of people (including some journalists) seem to prefer not to talk about it suddenly, now that there is some undisputably positive news. I remember Michael pointing to a panel discussion recently where some editors were explaining that even though violence is down, it's too early to indicate a trend so it's logical by their thinking that they shouldn't report the downturn- yet every UPTICK in violence was featured on the front page. That shows an actual desire to downplay the good, not just a belief that the public is tired of hearing about Iraq.
Posted by Tom

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6186 ›

Tom Or it could be the titillating effect of violence...even domestically the news loves to reports crimes and disasters. But yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if a "certain segment of the left" would be unwilling to talk about Iraq when things improve. As for me, I'm just tired. ;)
Posted by Chris

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6164 ›

Chris "You know, if Mitt Romney considers having put an additional 30,000 troops, spent billions of additional dollars only to have the same levels in violence in Iraq that we had back in June of 2006 without any political reconciliation among the Iraqis as a success, then the Republican Party's in more trouble than I thought. You know, the fact of the matter is that we have essentially gone back to exactly where we were 15 months ago -- levels of intolerable violence and a dysfunctional Iraqi government and so I think it would be very hard to argue that somehow we've seen significant change of the sort that we could call success. We have gone down from the horrendous levels of violence that existed six months ago back to simply intolerable levels of violence that we had 15 months ago and that is after enormous effort and enormous strain placed on troops and families." - Obama
Posted by Marc Schulman

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6161 ›

Marc Schulman My reply to Senator Obama: When the Americans and Brits crossed into Germany from the West and the Russians into Germany from the East, the area occupied by the Nazis was back to where it was on September 1, 1939. This was "after enormous effort and enormous strain placed on troops and families." You would agree that it was worth it.
Posted by Chris

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6159 ›

Chris Marc Schulman, Only one wrinkle in that analogy Marc. In this case we are both the Nazis (the cause) and the allies (the solution). Iraq is still no where close to how stable or secure it was in 2002 and that was no where close to where it was before the sanctions.
Posted by Interested

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6157 ›

Interested Obama, You mean the same guy who at the last Debate accused Bush of raiding the Social Security Fund? Which ignores fact - that Obama?
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6155 ›

Michael van der Galiën Yep. Blame America first.
Posted by Chris

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6153 ›

Chris I blame Woodrow Wilson.
Posted by Michael van der Galiën

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6151 ›

Michael van der Galiën = American.
Posted by Chris

| Quote | Trackback | Link #6150 ›

Chris okay okay... I blame Woodrow Wilson and the Ottoman Empire. I didn't mean to leave them out. Ohhh and let's not forget the British. Those three pretty much set the stage for all the strife in the Middle East we are experiencing now.