Iraq: What the Media Isn't Telling You

Arthur Chrenkoff's latest roundup of the last two weeks of vastly underreported progress in Iraq is now available. Once again, Arthur dispels the media's ridiculous notion that Iraq is nothing but car bombs and chaos. Despite all the violence and other problems, the outlines of a decent, pluralist society are beginning to emerge:

'The Terrorists and the Media'


Yesterday, Deroy Murdock offered a terrific summary of the "good news" side of the Iraq story for National Review Online:

The journalists’ maxim, “If it bleeds, it leads,” prevails. Major news outlets correctly focus on the depressing consequences of the Improvised Explosive Devices and car bombs responsible for 70 percent of July’s U.S. military fatalities in Iraq. Terrorist assassinations of civil servants and police officers obviously deserve coverage. But it honors neither America’s soldiers nor Iraq’s selfless patriots to overlook the achievements they share in this new republic.

Good News, Bleeding to Get Out


As Austin Bay recently noted, even the New York Times and Associated Press have now begun to acknowledge the one-sided nature of most of the coverage coming from Iraq.

The point is not that "bad news" from Iraq should not be covered. There is all too much of this, and it is an essential part of the story. However, it is not the entire story. The goal of American policy in Iraq is to create a democratic, pluralist state and society that will serve to counter the culture of dictatorship, xenophobia, and fanaticism that produced radical Islamism and the 9/11 atrocities. This is obviously a long-term objective, and the challenges are enormous. The goal of the Baathist/jihadist terrorist insurgency is to prevent such a new Iraq from taking root. The fact that, for all the difficulties, we are indeed making progress in reconstructing Iraq is essential to understanding the full story. This is why a balanced approach to reporting on Iraq that puts events into context is vital.