The old saying in the news media seems to be holding true; "If it bleeds, it leads."
Well, more so in this case, it seems to be the lack of blood of late that is the tell-tale sign of where the media's priorities lay.
Politico's media analyst Michael Calderone notes today how the networks are... "Losing the war [3]". Aptly titled!
Several major newspapers, with the exception of the New York Times [4], have significantly reduced Iraq coverage in recent years, amid overall cutbacks. And as Brian Stelter reports [5] today, television networks appear to be doing the same.
The Big Three networks -- ABC, NBC and CBS -- no longer have a full-time correspondent in Iraq, where roughly 130,000 U.S. troops remain.
In Baghdad, ABC, CBS and NBC still maintain skeleton bureaus in heavily fortified compounds. Correspondents rotate in and out when stories warrant, and with producers and Iraqi employees remaining in Baghdad, the networks can still react to breaking news. But employees who are familiar with the staffing pressures of the networks say the bureaus are a shadow of what they used to be. Some of the offices have only one Western staff member.
CNN and Fox still have a correspondent in Iraq. But lately, there's been a tendency to shift the focus to Afghanistan.
As the Iraq War enters its seventh year in March, cash-strapped media companies are finding it difficult to pay for expenses -- most notably, security -- that are associated with staffing in a war-ravaged region.
Ironic, how that sluggish economy excuse can be noted for the lack of coverage in Iraq military victory. Aren't these the same networks that have been trying to pin the "Recession" label on President Bush for, seemingly, the last 4 years now?
Andrew Breitbart also takes on the media and their diminishing voice regarding Iraq, today in an opinion piece for The Washington Times [6] - Not so much the news media side, but the Hollywood-cultural side's abandonment of their vocal opposition to the war.
This was the year Hollywood [7] finally realized that it couldn't sell an anti-Iraq war film. It also was the year the mainstream media discovered it couldn't report that the war on terror had failed.
Countless prime-time hours and untold acres of celluloid and newsprint were wasted demeaning the American mission. Yet, in the end, the heroic warriors destroyed their media adversaries by defeating our true enemies on the battlefield.
Except for the election of an antiwar candidate, 2008 was a great year for the pro-war side and only an economic meltdown could divert attention from this fact.
Breitbart makes a strong case for Obama's opportunity at hand to actually carry on and bring this victory home, if he decides to carry things through. Candidate Obama's snatch defeat from the jaws of victory rhetoric we have heard from him for over two years can now go by the wayside, if he only decides to act with reason in bringing about a successful endgame to President Bush's War on Terror.
On the precipice of victory in Iraq, and recommitting to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, continuing military victories on a Democratic president's watch would be extraordinarily transforming for a party that pretends to thrive in the shadow of George McGovern.
Throwing antiwar agitators Markos Moulitsas and Arianna Huffington under the biodiesel bus would be a historic act that would cause moderates and traditional liberals to rejoice. What would the nutroots at the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos do: Draft Cindy Sheehan again? Or support the Republican next go-around?
Most conservatives just want to win and don't care who gets the credit. If Mr. Obama crushes al Qaeda over the next four years, he will be re-elected, and he will win over many Republicans, including Mr. Bush, who only cares about winning. Not who gets the credit.
As Breitbart mentions, instead of the Leftist media's continuing retreat into the shadows as we are on the precipice of victory, perhaps now is the time for them, more so than ever, to step up and actually help America win this thing! Sadly, however, if they were to go about taking this major change in strategy it would only be done by these partisan hacks due to the figurehead they would now fulfill this duty on behalf of, and not for their nation's wellbeing, as a whole.
Well, now we can, and we should fight the war in the media. Hollywood got Mr. Obama elected, and he has an army who will do whatever he says.
Scarlett Johansson has Mr. Obama's e-mail address. Perhaps she can become the new face of the USO. And Ben Affleck is still young enough to enlist. Susan Sarandon can play the part of Martha Raye.
In one epic act of triangulation, deploying America's awesome propaganda power, Hollywood and the Democratic Party can be redeemed.
Are you ready to win a war, President Obama. Or what?
