Answer--The story does not fit the mains stream media narrative. That narrative is that it was a mistake to liberate Iraq and all the US forces who do not agree with that narrative arew incompetant boobs. As Simon and Garfunkle sing in the Boxer, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Look, I supported OIF, and I still think it was the right thing to do, and that we should finish the job.

But really. Ive seen successful projects highlighted in the MSM (well at least the WaPo) And ive seen disasters highlighted. I look at the Brookings index, which seems fair, to see how reconstruction is going. The situation on the ground vis-a-s reconstruction is mixed. Alot of new infra up, yes, but electricity prod is stalled, and barely above prewar, and is unreliable, oil production is still a big problem, and in general the economy in the center of the country - baghdad and the Sunni triangle is mediocre to bad (while being good in the Shia south and very good in Kurdistan).

Polls show Iraqis hopeful about the future, and thats a good sign. But they dont say things are good now, cause, AFAICT, the reality is they arent.

But i suppose im an idiot liberal for not believing Iraq today has become heaven on earth.

What liberalhawk said. This schtick is getting old. The media is the media and always will be, because reporters and editors have the same cognitive biases as the rest of us; you don't read many stories about things going right because things going right fails to grab our attention. Why is anyone still feigning shock and indignation about this?

The newsies won't report good news that they haven't seen. They will report bad news they haven't seen. And they won't leave the safety of their hotel rooms in Iraq.

Perhaps there is a intellectual, and career difference between journalists and historians which would explain why "if it bleeds, it ledes".

Matt,

The media derives its moral standing, which has escalated to delusions that they are the modern priestly class of secular socieites, from their supposed commitment to reporting (take your pick) the truth, the facts, et. al. in this vein. If that goes away... well, think of it as a bad news story worth telling.

This continues to be an issue because the troops who are there every day keep saying that the place the media talks about isn't a place they recognize. See Murdoc's interview right here just last week for another example.

Then we couple it with consistent surveys from many sources that show incredibly lopsided political affiliation slants within the profession.

Let's see... professional failure of obligation plus non-representative profession (while spouting crap about "diversity"), in time of war.... don't think you need to be a journalist to recognize a story there.

Joe,

What we have is a "Col Blimp" media.

They never go near the front.

They report only what they want to hear.

And they keep making ultra-hyped stories on everything, especially if it might hurt Pres. Bush, the way the WW1 British and French chateau generals ordered fruitless trench assaults that mounded the dead and churned the French countryside.

They don't do any different because it is all they know and all they want to know.

Consequences:
Infrastructure has deteriorated compared to the Saddam Hussein era and critical services offered to the population are inferior to what they were. Less electricity is produced and current is only available 3.7 hours a day in Baghdad, compared to 16-24 hours before the war. It's a little better in the rest of the country: 10 hours compared to 4 to 8 hours. Only a third of the population has access to potable water (8.25 million) versus half under Saddam (12.9 million). Five million people have sewer access compared to 6.2 million before.

Speaking of whom, if it weren't so consistent with other posts, I would assume that the claims above that the Mainstream Media is missing the Great Sewer Story and other "good" news from Iraq because they have to hunker down in the Green Zone would be a parody written by a liberal in sarcasm mode. Let's see, if it's so safe and wonderful everywhere except Baghdad, why don't they all just move? On this planet, the danger to journalists covering the war is itself very bad news. They're getting kidnapped and killed. Over sixty journalists have been killed covering the Iraq War, and will soon surpass the totals for Vietnam and World War Two. In the meantime I can think of only one war-intoxicated pundit of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders to show similar devotion, and he, Michael Kelly, belongs to both groups.

Andrew J is to be congratulated for his clever use of the French version of the story, since Le Monde is better at embellishing a story than any blogger.

He might have read the original report and have spared us the disinformation. http://www.sigir.mil/reports/pdf/testimony/SIGIR_Testimony_06-002T.pdf