\Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Get Reported (updated w/video) | NewsBusters.org

As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.

To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.

I kid you not.

After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"

This was Wright's amazing answer:

Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

So the numbers themselves are tricky.

Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?

No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.

And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.

Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.

Isn't that special?

Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:

But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.

After all, it shouldn't be their position to decide when a comeback, rally, or winning streak is real enough for them to jump on the bandwagon and get excited about. News - be it good or bad - is to be reported.

That's their job.

And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.

What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.

One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?

ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.

KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

__________________
"The most important and most connected man on this forum."
"As per the Forums leftist who insist I am associated with the upper echelons of our government, corporate America and the world’s power class.
Every moon bat conspiracy leads to me. "

Ain't Liberals funny? With bad news even a rumor becomes fact. With good news there "is not enough info to identify a trend."

__________________
When seconds count, Police are only minutes away.

Any whose the conspiracy thoerist now

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

no conspiracy hear my friend... Just a conversation on a CNN morning show.... I hope you do know the difference

__________________
"The most important and most connected man on this forum."
"As per the Forums leftist who insist I am associated with the upper echelons of our government, corporate America and the world’s power class.
Every moon bat conspiracy leads to me. "

They repoprt what sells. They love the goverment trust me. Its makes them there biggest cash.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

October 16, 2007
The Press Proved Sanchez's Point
By Jack Kelly

The Bush administration began the Iraq war with a "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic" war plan, and never has devised a comprehensive national strategy to fight the war, retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in a speech to military journalists last week.

The result is that Iraq is a "nightmare" where the best we can do is stave off defeat, LtGen. Sanchez said. The troop surge, he said, "is a desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war."

LtGen. Sanchez, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq from June, 2003 to June, 2004, is the highest ranking Iraq war veteran to publicly criticize the war, so his comments were newsworthy, despite being long on adjectives and short on specifics. But this column is less about what LtGen. Sanchez had to say and more about what the journalists who covered his speech chose to report.

All the news organizations which covered his speech emphasized the caustic things he had to say about the Bush administration.

But LtGen. Sanchez was as critical of Congress and the State Department as he was of Bush administration appointees:

"The administration, Congress, the entire interagency, especially the State Department must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable," he said. Only Josh White of the Washington Post mentioned this prominently.

Fully half of LtGen. Sanchez's speech to the Military Reporters and Editors was devoted to criticism of another influential group, a group he criticized more harshly and at greater length than he criticized the Bush administration, Congress, or the State Department. Yet Mr. White mentioned LtGen. Sanchez' criticism of this group only in the final paragraph of his lengthy story. The New York Times, the AP, UPI, and the Hearst Newspapers didn't mention it at all.

"Over the course of this war, tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media," LtGen. Sanchez said.

"Your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity," he said. "It seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the collateral damage you will cause."

"The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas," LtGen. Sanchez said. "What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war."

"Your profession has...allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on tv, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the Web," he said. "For some of you, just like for some of our politicians, the truth is of little or no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas... As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled."

The mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib happened on LtGen. Sanchez's watch, and he came in for a great deal of criticism of how he handled the scandal. The criticism clearly stung:

"In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world, he told the military journalists. "This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value of selfless service, honor and integrity... You report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct."

So perhaps LtGen. Sanchez's criticism of journalists could be dismissed as hyperbolic, and sour grapes. But the same could be said of his criticism of the Bush administration, which, in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, chose not to promote him to full general, leading to his retirement in 2006.

But the unwillingness of the journalists who covered his speech to report his criticisms of them lends credence to LtGen. Sanchez's charge that journalists slant or omit facts in order to serve their political and personal agendas.

"Our military must embrace you for the sake of our democracy," LtGen. Sanchez told the Military Reporters and Editors. "But you owe them ethical journalism."

It's a debt that has yet to be paid.

I get it! It's a vast left wing conspiracy. A conspiracy so vast and so embedded, that the only true independent media outlets are owned by Rupert Murdoch or Rev. Moon. Only there can you get the real truth about our great president and his wonderful war. After all, Iraq has been nothing but good news. So good, in fact, that almost 4000 American families wake up every morning and thank God they're loved ones were killed for nothing.

I see. You're more educated and knowledgeable than Sanchez, huh?

Don't you know that 'GENIUS' is the middle name of ALL Liberal/Socialists?

__________________
When seconds count, Police are only minutes away.

So, I presume you agree with Sanchez in all he's had to say, including his remarks critical of the Bush administration and it's handling of the Iraq war. Am I correct?