On the lack of Iraqi coverage:

[babylonsister]

[Imalittleteapot]

1. Watch News Hour on PBS

It was the only source of Iraq news I could find last night.

[babylonsister]

2. Shameful, isn't it. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Actually, I don't blame the media for this one.

The degree of media coverage a subject is worthy of is a function less of how important it is than of how much it's changing. There's a reason they call it "news".

"Iraqis continuing to die" is far less newsworthy than "Lebanese start dying".

If the situation in Iraq were to change significantly in any way, either for better or for worse, *that* would deserve considerable media coverage.

[babylonsister]

4. The U.S. is actively, physically involved in Iraq. I believe 4

soldiers died this past weekend, and dozens of Iraqis die daily. I do believe that's at least worthy of a mention. I have always suspected this admin manipulates the news, and think that's what's being done now.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. If soldiers *hadn't* died in Iraq recently, it would be newsworthy.

Because it would be unexpected. But I don't need the media to bring to my attention things that I'm already are assuming are happening. An occasional "since date X, Y more people have died" - which the Guardian, my principle news source, is supplying - is all it warrants, I think.

The situation in Iraq is such that atrocities are not newsworthy, but their absence would be.

[babylonsister]

6. I just don't want the situation in Iraq to be buried, for anyone,

especially the fumbling idiots responsible for it.