N.Y. Times Iraq War Coverage Drops to All-Time Low

[red states rule]

Why is the DNC Times no longer reporting on Iraq? Could it be they do not want to report the good news and progress being made? After all, by covering the progress people might think how Obama and the Dems were telling us how the war was lost, and how the surge would never succeed



N.Y. Times Iraq War Coverage Drops to All-Time Low
By Kevin Mooney (Bio | Archive)
October 21, 2008 - 12:57 ET

As the U.S. troop surge in Iraq has succeeded, leading to a dramatic decline in the number of U.S. casualties in that country, The New York Times’s coverage of the Iraq war also has declined, falling to an all-time low in the last two months, according to a CNSNews.com analysis of stories retrieved on the Nexis database. At The Washington Post, coverage of the war has been significantly lower this year than in previous years.

In the months leading up to the 2004 and 2006 elections, when U.S. casualties were running higher in Iraq, coverage of the Iraq war in both The New York Times and The Washington Post was greater than it has been in the months leading up to the 2008 election, when U.S. casualties have been low.

In August, September and October 2004, the months immediately preceding the last presidential election, The New York Times ran respectively 254, 328 and 383 stories that cited "Iraq" at least five times, according to Nexis searches of The New York Times. In August, September and October 2006, the months immediately preceding the last congressional election, The Times ran respectively 189, 215, and 223 stories that cited "Iraq" at least five times.

This year, the Times ran only 80 stories in August and 86 in September that cited "Iraq" at least five times. That is a drop of more than 60 percent from August and September of 2004.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kevin-mooney/2008/10/21/n-y-times-iraq-war-coverage-drops-all-time-low

[retiredman]

what I want to know is: what do you have to say about the RCP numbers?

Remember when that was YOUR favorite site?:laugh2:

[No1tovote4]

Yeah, there is a reason the war isn't the issue either of them speak about for more than three seconds, it is because there isn't a body count to impress upon the mind how awful we are because we are Americans.

We can get that poll up again, remember the one that George Soros paid for, that suggested that pretty much half the Iraqi population had died...

That one could give us some good America Guilt Syndrome and make us vote Democrat.

As long as they feel they don't need it, it will remain back-burner.

[Kathianne]

what I want to know is: what do you have to say about the RCP numbers?

Remember when that was YOUR favorite site?:laugh2:

Talk about off topic. RCP shows what all the polls do. What's your problem? Oh yeah, no one believes liars.

[retiredman]

Talk about off topic. RCP shows what all the polls do. What's your problem? Oh yeah, no one believes liars.

if all you got is insults, why post?

[Kathianne]

if all you got is insults, why post?

Obviously more than that. You were the one to ask about RCP, I answered.

[red states rule]

Yeah, there is a reason the war isn't the issue either of them speak about for more than three seconds, it is because there isn't a body count to impress upon the mind how awful we are because we are Americans.

We can get that poll up again, remember the one that George Soros paid for, that suggested that pretty much half the Iraqi population had died...

That one could give us some good America Guilt Syndrome and make us vote Democrat.

As long as they feel they don't need it, it will remain back-burner.

Yep, the liberal media and defeatest libs were tickled when the troops were being killed in large numbers. Then the troops did something the left never wanted to happen - they defeated the terrorists and have brought order to most of the country

So now Iraq is no longer news worthy since it does not help the Dem party. To libs like MFM that is fine - the last thing he wants reported or broadcast is any good news about anything

[retiredman]

Obviously more than that. You were the one to ask about RCP, I answered.

why did you feel compelled to call me a liar again? You all harp about me playing nice, but never seem to be able to take any steps yourself.

[red states rule]

why did you feel compelled to call me a liar again? You all harp about me playing nice, but never seem to be able to take any steps yourself.

Truth hurts eh?

[theHawk]

Why is the DNC Times no longer reporting on Iraq? Could it be they do not want to report the good news and progress being made? After all, by covering the progress people might think how Obama and the Dems were telling us how the war was lost, and how the surge would never succeed



N.Y. Times Iraq War Coverage Drops to All-Time Low
By Kevin Mooney (Bio | Archive)
October 21, 2008 - 12:57 ET

As the U.S. troop surge in Iraq has succeeded, leading to a dramatic decline in the number of U.S. casualties in that country, The New York Times’s coverage of the Iraq war also has declined, falling to an all-time low in the last two months, according to a CNSNews.com analysis of stories retrieved on the Nexis database. At The Washington Post, coverage of the war has been significantly lower this year than in previous years.

In the months leading up to the 2004 and 2006 elections, when U.S. casualties were running higher in Iraq, coverage of the Iraq war in both The New York Times and The Washington Post was greater than it has been in the months leading up to the 2008 election, when U.S. casualties have been low.

In August, September and October 2004, the months immediately preceding the last presidential election, The New York Times ran respectively 254, 328 and 383 stories that cited "Iraq" at least five times, according to Nexis searches of The New York Times. In August, September and October 2006, the months immediately preceding the last congressional election, The Times ran respectively 189, 215, and 223 stories that cited "Iraq" at least five times.

This year, the Times ran only 80 stories in August and 86 in September that cited "Iraq" at least five times. That is a drop of more than 60 percent from August and September of 2004.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kevin-mooney/2008/10/21/n-y-times-iraq-war-coverage-drops-all-time-low

Good news on the battlefield is bad news for Democrats. The last thing they need to hear on CNN is that the Iraq War is going well and that we are winning. Politicians and party first, thats the Democrat way.

[red states rule]

Good news on the battlefield is bad news for Democrats. The last thing they need to hear on CNN is that the Iraq War is going well and that we are winning. Politicians and party first, thats the Democrat way.

Hawk, it is sad to see how libs hate their fellow countrymen who disagree with them over politics - then the bastards who attacked us on 9-11

Libs would sit down and talk to them, while they express sheer hate to anyone who opposes their messiah

Tells you alot about the modern day Dem party