There are still reporters on the ground in Iraq for all the major news outlets. I watch updates from the roof of some hotel almost every day. But why aren't they out and about finding both good news and bad news stories?

FTR, the level of embedding during the Iraq invasion was unprecendented in warfare. Never before have so many journalists accompanied an invasion force. And with video-enabled satellite phones... wow, that was one great war movie.

Agreed Steven. There is nothing wrong with covering the horror of war, but to completely disregard the humanitarian missions is to deny the facts on the ground.

Either the reporters are unbiased and "just documenting the events on the ground" or they have chosen sides and are actively working for that side. So far, the latter appears to be the case, and the bacteria is the side they have chosen.

the la times provides reports on life in iraq from a number of vantage points on a daily basis. i can't recall reading the first section withou seeing at least one piece about locations where the residents are benefiting in some way from improvements or about individuals/groups who see some of the changes as positive.

clearly the author of this piece Linkis anything but lazy (one could hardly ask for more detail) and i don't see any evidence of bias here. i wonder how the administration would view it. i'm guessing they'd prefer it wasn't published because it's too damn real.

the landowner got his land back after the invasion. good thing.

the tenant farmers are slowly going under because--realistically--the whole place is pretty much outta control. not so good thing.

there's not a lotta horrendous drama. just dying citrus trees and date palms.

Kingbee:

clearly the author of this piece Linkis anything but lazy (one could hardly ask for more detail) and i don't see any evidence of bias here. i wonder how the administration would view it. i'm guessing they'd prefer it wasn't published because it's too damn real.

The article is a good read, and hard to imagine being true (harder still because we have no reason to believe it isn't at least based on actual events and people) but I am hardpressed to find anything "positive" about it. The reporter who wrote it is anything but "lazy". However, it goes on and on about how much worse life is in Iraq. Hardly "unbiased" or "balanced" reporting.

We are fed a constant diet of the horrors in this war. Articles written to the negative rarely (if ever) point out positives.

What would it hurt to report a humanitarian mission, without including the number of troops killed a county or two away?

On a daily basis our troops are building and rebuilding infrastucture in Iraq. Humanitarian groups and contractors are out putting their heart and soul into their jobs. We can find reports of these projects, but we have to go looking for them.

If we are to confine our information to the MSM, we get little more than a constant diet of how awful Americans are treating Iraqis. To it's shame, the MSM cares nothing about anything positive, only "exposing" our friends, nieghbors, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters as monsters or (at the very nicest), unwilling (but ordered) henchmen.

more people may have electrical power now than back in 2003, but it aint cuz there are powerplants on line...just a lotta gasoline-fueled generators in backyards.

Got any proof? Or is this just rhetoric? I mean really....your statement is kind of self-defeating. On one hand you admit that there are powerplants on line. But then turn around and say it's because of generators in backyards is why they have electricity.

No, smart informed people dont.

Right: all the news that's fit to print you'll find in the New York Post!Ugh.

Right: all the news that's fit to print you'll find in the New York Post!Ugh.

NO. But if you read enough sources, you will. Actually, I dont read the post either. After all, I want truth, not New York crap.