Silencing success?

Two years ago, when Iraq seemed to be spiraling into chaos, and Americans were dying there by the score, the stories were all over every news outlet. Several months into the surge? Not so much. In fact, the quieter it gets there, the less interested anyone seems to be.

According to data compiled by Andrew Tyndall, a television consultant who monitors the three network evening newscasts, coverage of Iraq has been “massively scaled back this year.” Almost halfway into 2008, the three newscasts have shown 181 weekday minutes of Iraq coverage, compared with 1,157 minutes for all of 2007. The “CBS Evening News” has devoted the fewest minutes to Iraq, 51, versus 55 minutes on ABC’s “World News” and 74 minutes on “NBC Nightly News.” (The average evening newscast is 22 minutes long.)

CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed.

Don't get me wrong: I still believe going into Iraq was a mistake, further compounded by a deplorable lack of preparation for transitional operations. The "surge" merely brought to bear the amount of force that should have been in place to keep the lid on in 2003-2004.

That said, the surge--and a much smarter diplomatic and economic counterinsurgency strategy--clearly has brought positive changes and some level of previously absent hope for stability. This would seem to be the time informing the American public is more important than ever: what are we doing now we weren't before? How much of the progress is solely "boots on the ground" and how much can be expected to self-sustain, allowing us to draw down forces? What lessons have U.S. forces learned that may be applicable in other fights against Al Qaeda and its various self-declared franchises? Most importantly, how should we plan to phase out our presence based on the new conditions on the ground?

Alas, the saying in the news business is "if it bleeds, it leads," and while Iraq still bleeds, it's not quite the carotid hemorrhage it was. Thoughtful analysis doesn't sell as many copies as sensational war photos, so the public will remain largely ignorant of how 2008 differs from 2004. The fact that ignorance will help the presidential candidate who opposed the surge is probably not a small consideration, either. Note: I say this as someone who has no intention of voting for McCain OR Obama.

Sadly, the corporate media have no incentive to better serve the public because America is both largely ignorant of the world at large, and content to remain that way. Because of this, the nation will forever be led around by the nosenewspaper.