Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWe're In A War - Where Are The Media?
The real news of April played second fiddle to the presidential campaign, the pope's visit to America, and the Texas polygamy case.
The death toll for the US military in Iraq hit 49 in April, making it the deadliest month since September, according to the Associated Press. Around Iraq, at least 1,080 Iraqi civilians and security personnel were killed last month, an average of 36 a day, according to the AP tally. While that's down from March's total of 1,269, or an average of 41 per day, those casualties certainly don't add up to a stable Iraq.
But Iraq isn't getting the prominent play of other news topics. The latest statistics from the Project for Excellence in Journalism back up the conclusion that coverage of the Iraq war is on the decline.
The Washington-based research organization studied roughly 1,300 stories from 48 news outlets during the month of April. The group's analysis found that during that time frame, the top news story was the presidential campaign, which accounted for 33 percent of news coverage. The economy came in second, accounting for 6 percent. The pope's visit accounted for 4 percent of the coverage, and the Texas polygamy case garnered another 4 percent.
Even as violence in Iraq increased, events on the ground in Iraq accounted for only 3 percent of news coverage, and the Iraq policy debate accounted for another 3 percent.
In April 2007, the Iraq policy debate was the second biggest story at 8 percent; and events on the ground in Iraq accounted for another 7 percent of the news, according to Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Jurkowitz attributes the downshift in media coverage to a number of factors that have played out since Democrats took control of Congress in November 2006.
First, he said, the media were prepared for a "battle royale" between Bush and a Congress that seemed determined to bring the troops home. Instead, in January 2007 Bush announced a military surge and went on to win a series of appropriations fights in Congress. At that point, "The media decided the political battle was over and that the administration, as long as it remained in office, would control the conduct of the war," said Jurkowitz.
With no political war to cover in Congress, the media were less interested in covering the actual war in Iraq. A downturn in media coverage can be traced to May 24, 2007, when Congress voted to fund the war without timetables.
Violence in Iraq did start to diminish in the last quarter of 2007. When it looked like the surge was reducing violence, there was less coverage of the situation inside Iraq, noted Jurkowitz. At the same time, the economy, from the mortgage market to gas prices, began to emerge as the number-one issue on the public's mind.
Meanwhile, the drawn-out presidential contest, particularly on the Democratic side, generates much media coverage, but not much focus on the Iraq war. The war is a small part of the debate, at least partly because the positions of the candidates are similar. That is likely to change in the general election, when the presidential contest is finally narrowed down to Republican John McCain versus the Democratic nominee, who is expected to be Barack Obama.
For now, the press is too caught up in Obama's belated renunciation of his former pastor's controversial statements to focus on Iraq.
Even the fifth anniversary of President Bush's 2003 appearance aboard the US aircraft carrier that displayed the now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" sign drew marginal attention.
There's the horse race to cover: How many superdelegates are in Obama's corner versus Clinton's?
And, there's the ratings race to exploit: Why did country singer Billy Ray Cyrus allow his 15-year-old daughter, Miley, to pose in a sheet for Vanity Fair? Was Barbara Walters driven by a desire for catharsis or book sales when she revealed an affair with former senator Edward M. Brooke that dates back to the 1970s?
It's enough to distract the media from writing an elegy for the war and its dead.
Joan Vennochi can be reached at vennochi@globe.com.
© 2008 The Boston Globe
28 Comments so far
Show AllTO MIFTIN: Amen bother!
BUT:
The public rarely enjoins the true issues or the politicians the reasons are clear. Special interests and "free enterprise" capitalism it is what this country has devised as worth living and dying for. The basis for the consumer ideology is energy and its association with an auto centered economy closes the circle. It uses the media to direct the public flow of the so-called truth and we have a perfect example of it in this political campaign. It is why Exxon Mobile is out of control and the public is given platitudes rather than help.
The media is out of control this election has shown us just how far it has gone to dumb-down the public. The recent move by ABC to remove candidates from the debates was outrageous. They are trying to determine the fate of the country and the world being mouthpiece for special interests and the government and to silence dissent.
Media censure is unheard, the FCC should rule for the public but like the EPA its teeth are continually drawn. The media has no right to exclude any politician who is running for office as happened recently with the ABC debate. The only exclusion under the rules used by ABC should apply to a candidate not sitting in public office. The license of ABC would be lifted if the rules were changed but the congress, with the exception of a few pushes for more media conglomeration supported by special interests. I hope that someone picks up on this thought. We have seen the obsession by FOX and CNN, particularly in the form of Wolf Blitzer, and the FOX rabid journalists constantly referring to the Rev. Wright controversy.
Blitzer's bias is clear. He is quick to use every possible negative he can against Obama from the Flag Pin to anything else he could get his mouth around. His support for Clinton has been clear and inappropriate, for CNN to call itself a "fair and balanced" news network. I quote Mr. Nichols: 
" The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions."
As usual, few are able to see the stampede of the public sheep created by media. I support the change that Obama represents! He is intelligent and wants America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could still be and once was. The present "lack of experience" cry of Clinton is preposterous. Could anyone having been near the White house as long as Bush done as badly for the USA? There is experience! However, the discovery of a job approval rating for him at about 28% of the American people speaks volumes about experience. No one could have been as bad as the Bush team! There is experience!
A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary . . .it has ruined this country and made greed the single value of importance. The young people once again embrace hope as a result of the Obama campaign. The Hillary political group and entrenched politics have virtually destroyed America with its policies and exclusive power clubs. She has believed this form government is America.
Clinton recently morphed to the Obama populist message, it was called, "finding her voice" while at the beginning of her stump showing her Madeline Albright, bomb the children image. 
Can anyone truly think that change is unnecessary? I guess not since all the politicos have adopted his message including McCain? The mistakes that Obama may make as president cannot be greater than those of the past seven years. It is also necessary to give him a democratic congress to make certain that the programs that Americans want can be enacted.
Mr. Gore Vidal, has pointedly criticized mainstream media as one of the major problems, and what is wrong with the USA. The corporate media conglomerates control the message and that message is perversely distorted and panders to its advertising portfolio! Wolf Blitzer one of the glaring examples of this criticism and shows clearly those distorted ideas with his reporting, which is nothing more than partially factual opinion dictated by his bosses.
He is a person who has no right to shape public opinion far from being the "fly on the wall" he espouses to be. We must remember flies morph from maggots. He displays ignorance as a virtue for the entire world to see, an example of what is considered, by many in America to be news reporting. If Blitzer were billed as a CNN commentator, at least the public would not be hoodwinked to believe his reporting to be the truth, while it is lack of concern for accuracy, rectitude and fairness to be considered to be news rather than opinion.
Most people around here are too busy working their heads off day-in and day-out to care that their media lies to them. Their general level of political sophistication can be summed up as: "The rich get rich and the poor get poorer." Gimme another Bud.
How to know that you are completely insane: http://allinharmony.org and personally involved in the program of genocide.
We are in a genocide! Why lie?
We are always involved in at least a couple of genocides or set-ups for future genocides somewhere on the planet... and we have very experienced partners in this activity; the English, etc.
Reality sucks, doesn't it?
All those people killed, maimed, tortured, horrified watching the killing or torture or rape of others they love... just because someone wanted to kill (or otherwise injure) them! No 'holier than thou' justifications... just abject suffering for no sane reason.
Genocide is the ultimate Ignorant Idea maintained by completely ignorant (and arrogant) people afraid to face reality.
It is a war when two people want to do damage to each other and go at it. When only one wants to do damage and acts upon it, it is called an assault.
The Iraq "War" was an assault followed by occupation and domination. The worst behavior you could hope for in a nation. This is not a war in the usual sense. This is resistance warfare. That is indeed a war, as both sides are acting to hurt each other. The resistance is of the people so they get killed too.
The US owns the world. No one should resist its wishes. The little people should see that the US should lead and simply follow.
It's not, and never has been, a war.
Stop giving it, and W's actions, even a shred of legitimacy.
No war --> no wartime powers --> high crimes.
Only god (or another tree) can make a tree.
Only Congress can declare war.
Only KBR can get away with killing US Soldiers for profit. I'd call that AIDING the enemy.
E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Beware The Red (state) Menace.
The media aren't making an issue of the Iraq occupation because the weenie Dems (whether in congress or running for president) aren't making an issue of it either. Sure, they'll mention it in passing, as an after thought, but there should really be a constant drumbeat as to how it has undermined our economy, our armed forces, our reputation throughout the world, and our overall national security.
Yes. By all means, blame the media. Just don't blame them exclusively.
The Corporate Controlled Media determine EXACTLY what and who gets covered in the 'news' for that day.
I am presently reading Barrie Zwicker's 'Towers of Deception'. It is very informative as to how the MSM is complicit in the very actions the US, UK and other Western governments are undertaking in their war on the common man.
Where Are The [corporate] Media?
Supporting the war, day in, day out.
It is an occupation. It is no longer a "war". Since the MSM has been caught red-handed by the NYT on the "analysts", (who are really Pentagon propagandists) they employ to report on the "war", what can any of them possibly report, that viewers would find credible?
The press is worried that Rupert Murdoch will stop handing them paychecks if they criticize his political party. Musn't say anything negative about the war, or republicans, you know! Gotta get that paycheck from Rupert, no matter how many lives it costs! Run! Run!
Here's a good one for you. If you are watching N.H.L. hockey playoffs on CBC you will notice that when disputed calls are being reviewed by officials on replays, the room with the replay cameras is constantly referred to by the announcers as the "War Room". Makes you stop and think, eh?
You forget----This is a LIFESTYLE war---a war of choice to keep every overweight American's SUV going full-throttle enroute to the debt-mall. Why are people so quiet about this international obscenity? Because they hope it will just "go away" leaving them "free to graze" as thoughtlessly as before....America is IN BED with GW Bush, much as they claim to loathe him---even better, they can claim to loathe him WHILE sitting back and letting him do the dirty work. When PEOPLE become vocal, the media will follow, because all they care about is advertising revenue....
What media. You mean the psyops entertainment media, who have CIA and Northcom psyops officers directing their coverage? It's still there. Doing their best Baghdad Bob imitation.
i'm with zounds. can't we just hold our mainstream media to a standard of journalistic evidence?
Come again...?
The USA public is in a war against its own hijacked government and its government-collusive new media -- not against the Iraqi people in particular, or the Muslim world in general.
Stop blurring the real battle lines.
"We're In A War"
If by "we," JV means The United States of America, then she is wrong, and she seriously needs to stop helping the GOPlunderers maintain the biggest of the big lies.
The USA has not officially declared "war" on any nation on Earth. We are not at "war" with Iraq, we are not at "war" with the tactic of terrorism, and we are not at "war" with certain drugs the Fed has determined are more dangerous than Vioxx.
If JV and her ilk would stop throwing the word "war" around, and, instead, starting using the more accurate words "illegal occupation," then maybe more of our fellow Americans would stop giving the "war" president the benefit of the doubt and start doubting his ability to fulfill his term, and maybe even start questioning his multi-pronged attempts to ignore all the known laws in the universe based on "war powers" he does not if fact have presently.
Now, if JV wants to be technical, then the USA has committed acts of war against Somalia and Iran just this week; tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela, which is an act of war; they succeeded in overthrowing the government in Haiti a few years back, which is an act of war; have committed cross-border raids and bombings in Pakistan, which are acts of war; tried to overthrow Hamas, an act of war; and since Turkey bombed Iraq, and, as occupiers, we are responsible for the security of Iraq, we're at war with Turkey, too. Plus, based on the so-called Bush Doctrine, since we have made overt threats against Iran, not to mention cross-border recon and raids, Iran has every "right" to launch a pre-emptive war against "us" in order to prevent a "gathering threat to the Homeland."
But Iraq? No, not a war at all. Illegal. Occupation.
And on Saturday, six more US troops were KIA. And this just in from Buzzflash.com: "Persuant to Minnesota Statute 586.01 we petition the Court to order Hennepin County Attorney Michael Freeman to arrest George W. Bush when he arrives here at the end of August, 2008 to attend the National Republican Convention and to bring charges of Murder in the Third Degree, Section 609.195; Conspiracy to fix prices, Section 325D.51; and Conspiracy to distribute drugs, Section 609.228 against George W. Bush and present them to a Grand Jury so that a Grand Jury may return a Bill of Indictment and George W. Bush may be arrested and made to stand trial when his plane lands in Hennepin County at the end of August".
"THE COPORATE CONTROLLED MEDIA CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"....You mean they are absolutely not interested in the truth....and simply 'won't handle the truth' unless it furthers the cause of MIC/GOP imperialism...
Why would the media stick their necks out when the people do not support them. Why would Congress stick their necks in a noose when the people do not support them. They don't and they won't until people awaken. The people don't seem to care.
The occupation of Iraq to steal OIL and keep AIPAC happy and the Likudists on their meds....its boring and doesn't sell airtime and newsprint time...
Now American Idol that's a marketer's dream $$$$$$$...
"Meanwhile, the drawn-out presidential contest, particularly on the Democratic side, generates much media coverage, but not much focus on the Iraq war. The war is a small part of the debate, at least partly because the positions of the candidates are similar. That is likely to change in the general election, when the presidential contest is finally narrowed down to Republican John McCain versus the Democratic nominee..."
Whichever Democrat becomes the nominee, let's try to imagine what the debates between the Dem and McCain will be like, with regard to Iraq.
McCain will argue for "victory," staying as long as it takes, & ensuring that the "sacrifices of our men and women in uniform shall not have been made in vain."
The Democrat will be reduced to the Kerry position of 2004 -- claiming that he or she could fight the War on Terror (itself, a Bush concept) "smarter" than the Republican could. Neither Democrat has come anywhere near criticizing the War on Terror itself -- both accept the notion that even questioning a full commitment to US victory in the WoT is heresy.
Therefore, the best the Dem can do is argue for pulling some troops (only "combat" troops) out of Iraq, while leaving enough troops to "defend American interests", for "counter-terrorism," and for training Iraqi troops. Either Dem will blame the current Iraqi government for "not doing enough" (code for "not crushing all Iraqis opposed to US domination of their country & oil.") Either Dem will argue that pulling some troops out of Iraq will free up the US military to be more ready to fight elsewhere; and that Bush's Iraq policy has "placed strain" on the US military.
In itself, this position accepts all the assumptions underlying US militarism. It opposes not the war itself, but simply current troop levels in Iraq. Its point is not that US militarism is in any way objectionable; it merely maintains that current policy is hampering US militarism.
Thus, the Democrat goes into the debate accepting the Republican's general conceptual framework: that the War on Terror must be fought and must be won. The Democrat will put forth a somewhat different plan for achieving this result, but starts out by accepting his or her opponent's foundational assumptions. This is like going into battle -- and starting by bending down on your knee to the wisdom of your opponent.
A war against the wind… it is indeed an occupation and will never be won.
Mission Accomplished!
just like president bush...the MSM,does not like talking about the wars (iraq and afghanistan) (THE NEGATIVE SIDE)they don't like big headlines that say...49 us servicemen\women killed in the month of april 2008...THE COPORATE CONTROLLED MEDIA CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH !!
The media is not "caught up" in anything. They are just following the oders of their corporate fascist masters. Actually, the term "media" is a misnomer..better to call them the "propaganda machine".
Why do you call it a war? Because the US government and Murdoch Media call it a war? Why believe them? Why play their semantic game?
The war against Iraq ended 5 years ago. It is an occupation. Don't give it more validity than it deserves.
Hey, there is mention of Iraq in Yahoo news today:"Planners eye shopping center, condos in Baghdad's Green Zone" so you see, everything is almost "normalized" in Iraq, why do you guys have your nickers in a twist?