[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you mean the only thing that you read about in the NYT thats really changed is the body count.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you think that it shouldn't be reported? I often hear people say that the reporting should be more positive out of Iraq, but think about this. Take this month for instance: 699 Iraqi civilians and security forces have died and 42 US soldiers have died. That's 2 soldiers a day and 30 Iraqis dying a day. Now, imagine that this was happening in New York City or somewhere close to home. Do you think your local newspaper, or any responsible journalist, is going to report on a school being built down the street, or anything else very positive, when that many people are dying a day? Journalists are supposed to report the news, and when they do that they have to decide what is newsworthy. A school being built, new sewage lines being put in, or whatever positive news coverage some people call for is not news worthy when that many people are dying every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you aren't kidding, I think the difference is clear. One expects casualties in a war torn country, and they don't in New York. So, yeah, that many casualties in NY would certainly be news. Daily infrastucture enhancements to a war torn country are more newsworthy than the same or similar enhancement in New York. To me that means that we should see more stories about schools, hospitals, wetland restoration, and other infrastucture news ... but we don't outside the conservative media.

From a journalists perspective, I can see why both would be newsworthy in Iraq. Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems to focus on only/mostly the negative. While I am inclined to believe that some/much of this is due to poliical bias, I am also willing to concede it is also part of our culture where bad news seems to be something we want to hear more than good news. Proof? Turn on your nightly news.

NCAces