This is the usual pap -- heard from right, left and middle -- that "the (fill in the blank media) don't report about (fill in the blank) because they are biased." Usually the second blank is filled in with the words "good news about..." This is a continuing issue and based on a total misunderstanding about journalism. Let's go to Journalism 101: *Journalists write news stories about conflict or human interest *Every so often journalists write a "situationer" or "analysys" piece that will cover the progression of a situation, perhaps from bad to good. *Despite all claims to the contrary, conflict and human interest pieces are what sells newspapers or garners advertising space/air time. "Good news" doesn't sell. Until I cut them back to canes yesterday, my rose bushes as well as rosebushes throughout the western US desert had beautiful flowers on them. Good, especially for rose lovers. My car and tens of thousands of cars in my hometown did NOT get into a fatal crash yesterday. Good, especially for drivers, passengers, pedestrians and insurance companies. Good -- but not news. By the same token, a story that there wasn't an attack in Iraq yesterday, that an American soldier didn't get killed, is not news. That fact, along with similar ones, will be bundled into the situationer or analysys story -- a type of story which appears far less frequently than straight news. This particular piece really ascribes base motives to a clear fact: coverage of Iraq is going down as more controversial and conflict-driven stories develop (Presidential primaries, Darfur, national economy etc.) Controversy and conflict are what journalism is largely about. I do understand the appeal of "the sky is falling" claim that they're picking on (fill in the blank). But it's an ignorant claim in most cases. For my next door neighbors, if they make that ignorant claim, I'm willing to accept it. They have no particular background or reason to understand Journalism 101. There are whole areas of knowledge that I'm ignorant of. Everyone cannot know everything. This particular columnist, I have observed, seems to fancy himself a media critic. If he claims to be a media critic, I'm going to hold him to a higher standard, and a better understanding, than I do my landscape architect neighbor across the way. This is the kind of trashy analysys I've come to expect from that particular writer. If that seems harsh, I apolizine. But I'm not willing to give someone who claims to be knowledgeable in a field a bye when he clearly doesn't understand how the field works. This piece is NOT good journalism. It's heartfelt. I have no doubt he believes what he says. But I cannot condone the ignorance it proves.