I think they did that.  They were called Embedded Reporters.  But after the fighting (major) stopped, the reporters got bored with no killing to report and came home.

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.

The problem with attempting to embed them now is that there is no true line of defense and no way to protect the press, but even if it were so, the news would still be about violence. My point is to cover less violent areas where good things are happening.

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.

I don't think it's a matter of choice; the military doesn't make an effort to protect these reporters when outside the havens. There are no Ernie Pyles today.

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.

the la times provides reports on life in iraq from a number of vantage points

Conservatives don't read the LA or NY Times.

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.

On a daily basis our troops are building and rebuilding infrastucture in Iraq.

i know it's true (surprise...la times again). however i really have to wonder why. not because i have any doubt about their ability--or even their desire--to do so, but because they appear to have more than enuff on their plate and, more importantly, the contractors to whom you attribute such altruistic zeal have been andd are being paid a shitload of money to fix the place.

admittedly it's a huge and very dangerous undertaking but like i said, someone is getting paid and others are grabbing what they can while they can and not a whole lot is getting done. 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.


which may just be the reason why life in iraq doesn't provide a lotta happy stories even at best.

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.

Conservatives don't read the LA or NY Times.

No, smart informed people dont.

No, smart informed people dont.

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

No, smart informed people dont. Right: all the news that's fit to print you'll find in the New York Post!Ugh.

Well, I'm sorry to inform you that you won't find it in the LA OR the NY Times either!

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.