Laurie Byrd at The Examiner reports on the media front of the war on terror:
Whether they realize it, members of the mainstream media are participants in the war on terrorism, and nowhere is that more evident than in Iraq.
As she goes on to report:
[Blogger Bill] Roggio recently told the Christian Science Monitor that most mainstream media reporters “display a lack of knowledge of counterinsurgency and the role the media plays in an insurgency’s information campaign.” He says al Qaeda and insurgent groups frequently choose their targets to get specific media coverage they desire.
She cites another example, this one offered by journalist Michael Yon:
“As the British increase their forces in Afghanistan, they are drawing down in Iraq. Although the drawdown in Iraq is based on pragmatism, the enemy apparently is attempting to create the perception of a military rout. So while the British reduce their forces in southern Iraq, they are coming under heavier fire and the enemy makes claims of driving ‘the occupiers’ out.”
Then there is the media's lack of interest in good news, according to Gerd Schroeder, a major in the U.S. Army who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He came to that conclusion, reports Byrd, after studying The Iraq Index, a report prepared by the Brookings Institute that keeps track of various statistics in Iraq, and comparing it with news reports on the numbers of trained Iraqi Security Forces.
As Bryd reports:
Schroeder concluded that when ISF figures became a good news story of progress, they received less media attention. He says there is “significant, unreported good news” in Iraq. He acknowledges there is plenty of bad news there, but that “the media has been doing a good job of reporting on those negative aspects.”
While I'm sure the mainstream media believes its role is to speak truth to and about power - and I agree that that's its proper role - it ought to remember that there are competing sources of power, especially in a war zone.