"I think ..."

Evidence - none

"I think ..."

Evidence - none

"I don't think..."

Evidence - none

"a larger trend ..."

Evidence - none; Bonus fault - begs the question

" ... who have done a lot of damage [Evidence of damage - none] in their desperation [Evidence of desperation - none] to spin as much news as possible in a positive way [Evidence of such spinning - none]."

Why exactly should we care about your unsupported opinions?

- Alaska Jack

[And before you say, "Well, the other side doesn't have proof either," let me nip that argument in the bud. Chrenkoff, the Speculist and others routinely run roundups of good news from Iraq that hasn't been reported. Also, I've seen interview after interview with servicemen in and returning from Iraq, who say the most bewildering thing is reconciling the progress they see on the ground with the relentless drumbeat of negativity in the press.]

Let's set aside the question of whether Waring and I are confused about Iraq.

The point I really want to make here is that Garrard wants to interpret Waring charitably but for some reason can't do it. This despite the fact that there is a very obvious charitable interpretation staring Garrard in the face. Garrard doesn't seem to be able to see that Waring is really, really, really upset about Iraq and the way it's going. And that the satire comes very much from the same place that Garrard's concern does: serious distress about what is happening in Iraq.

So even if Waring and I are confused about the coverage issue, I still think Garrard is wrong about Waring. Of course I don't think Waring and I are confused about the coverage issue. But that's another argument.

I should also say that Norm has always been a perfect gentleman with me. He has always taken care *not* to treat me as someone who is callously indifferent to Iraqis. I appreciate it. But I can't help but notice how priviledged my status has been. It seems that when you're in a Normblog state of mind almost everyone who opposed the war looks like a callous heel. It often leads him to misinterpret people, in my opinion. It also led Garrard to misinterpret Waring. Or so it seems to me.

". . . has always been a perfect gentleman with me."

Hmmmm. Doesn't sound exactly right. Sounds like I'm assuring you he hasn't tried to sleep with me. I mean he's always been very polite.

Must proof read before posting.

Yes, I really did support the war. In defense of my satire, Bird Dog's post says that the ramblings of an australian blogger who gets all his information from the press is more accurate than the NYT. He also says that the news of some underfunded committee in Iraq taking the amazing step of having meetings to formulate a strategy to deal with archaeological looting is more worth reporting than a coordinated series of bombings aimed at churches. Just ask yourself which would get more play had both events happened in the US. Would that be rational? Would anyone complain that the wrong events were being emphasized?

The question of whether the press paints too rosy or too gloomy a picture of events in Iraq is different from the question of what attitude we should take towards those who would like to see more positive news being covered. I was commenting on the latter issue, not the former one, and arguing that whatever attitude we should take we shouldn't attribute shallow frivolity to those who want to maintain hope, since even if their hope is misplaced, and hence open to various kinds of criticism, the maintenance of hope in (ex hypothesi) terrible circumstances isn't to be lightly dismissed.

I'm sorry to have been involved in a personal emergency that prevented me responding to earlier comments at Crooked Timber on this (or going anywhere near any blogs at the time), but just to clarify why I am one of those who waxed sarcastic about Belle's "satire" -- it was essentially clumsy ridicule of the Tacitus argument, but its actual purpose was obviously to suggest the good news bears (or maybe that should be bulls?) are trying to promote non-news rather than any bad news from Iraq.

That isn't the crux of the argument. I am a journalist who has to evaluate (copytaste) a mountain of world news every day and make judgments about what is newsworthy and how much space any specific story deserves – if any – in our lamentably few pages.

I and other colleagues apply the usual rules. This means, in callous terms, two to 10 blown up in Iraq, maybe a couple of pars in the roundup from that benighted place. Dozens blown up queueing to join security forces or go to church, a longer piece. Minister killed, bigger piece. Battle in Najaf with Sadr's guys, near mosques, stronger treatment (it's a development with political and maybe revolutionary implications). Fine so far.

But we often give far more expansive treatment (esp. on feature pages) to rarities from Iraq: stories of how soldiers have established working relationships in hostile strongholds; individual acts of self-sacrifice at great risk; the return of intellectuals to try to rebuild despite a campaign of murder against them, the restoration of the museum. And many more.

Space is our biggest foe, but it is much less of a problem for big US newspapers. Given the volume of terrific human interest and news copy I have seen about the "other' Iraq -- the one in which people are trying to make a difference and build a something new and genuinely Iraqi (not sectarian) from Saddam's totally busted-arse country (as I believe the Aussie expression goes) -- given all this, why am I seeing so very few of these stories anywhere but the Net or the newswires?

The fact is that continued daily senseless slaughter is not big news. It gives readers battle fatigue in the end. They stop caring. They don't want to take it in.

These judgments are based on sales figures for our paper, survey sampling of reaction to stories in the paper, and the kind of news readers say they are interested in. And it is common sense really.

There is another Iraq, the one most want. It is not clear or in unaninous agreement about where it is going or exactly what it is building. But this Iraq is clear that it is not going to give the place back to the men of violence. Yes, Iraqis dislike the occupation, yes the US has made mistakes and bad things have happened (as always in an occupation, see Korea, etc). In equal numbers, the same Iraqis polled believe it is necessary for the foreign troops to stay (surveys) until the fear of civil war recedes, its own forces of order are re-established and capable; they see the oc cupiers as a necessary evil, and they expect them to behave fairly (and of course some don't).

Bele's post was, I'm afraid, just silly.

"Hmmmm. Doesn't sound exactly right. Sounds like I'm assuring you he hasn't tried to sleep with me."

Hmm. I think some of us would now like that assurance.

In equal numbers, the same Iraqis polled believe it is necessary for the foreign troops to stay (surveys

IIRC, you're a couple of months out of date; a majority now wants them to f'ck off home.