From the mind of Fox News's Bill O'Reilly: (h/t to Romenesko)

 See this post for context. Keep in mind O'Reilly says he's only speaking for himself, and not Fox News.

... As a commentator, I am rooting for the Americans and British to win, because a victory is better for the USA and the world.

Now we've done hundreds of Iraq reports on this program, as you know. But we don't do the carnage du jour. We don't highlight every terrorist attack because we learn nothing from that. And that's exactly what the terrorists want us to do. I mean, come on, does another bombing in Tikrit mean anything other than war is hell? No, it does not.

In my opinion, CNN, and especially MSNBC, delight in showing Iraqi violence because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush. And that strategy has succeeded.

So their Iraqi coverage is more political than informational, again in my opinion. Could be wrong about CNN. I'm not wrong about the committed left wing crew over at NBC.

Finally, just who are these Project for Excellence in Journalism people? Well, their spokesman is a guy named Mark Jerkowitz, a former TV writer for the far left Boston Globe and the off the chart left Boston Phoenix.

Note: His name is Jurkowitz.

Now I've known Mr. Jerkowitz for many years. He hates FOX News and is a committed leftist. So much for journalistic excellence.

Now when the Associated Press picked up the study, it didn't identify Jerkowitz as a FOX hater. And it should have.

The bottom line is this. We've reported time and again that the war in Iraq is indeed a mess. There's little news value in broadcasting daily bombings. By the way, FOX News continues to crush CNN and MSNBC in the ratings, as the folks know news when they see it. And that's the "Memo."

Oh dear. Where to start?

For one thing, look at this breakdown on Iraq coverage in particular:

• MSNBC: Policy, 26%; War, 3%; homefront, 2% - Total, 31%
• CNN: Policy, 15%; War, 7%; homefront, 3% - Total, 25%
• Fox: Policy, 10%; War, 3%; homefront, 1% - Total, 15%

The cable average for war coverage as a proportion of their overall news hole is 23 per cent.

So Fox doesn't want to cover every terrorist bombing. Fair enough. But why not more coverage on the homefront or the policy aspect of the story? Because they don't want to make Dubya look bad? Wouldn't that be more political than informational?*

* That becomes more plausible when you see that Fox also gave much less coverage to the U.S. attorneys scandal. OTOH, Fox loved the Anna Nicole Smith and Missouri kidnappings stories.

I don't watch much Fox, but in the first quarter of 2007, couldn't the network have given more coverage of the U.S.'s biggest military operation since Vietnam without covering the bombing du jour, given the surge and all?

In any event, MSNBC spent exactly as much time on the war part of the equation as Fox, three per cent, yet O'Reilly rails about how MSNBC delights in showing Iraqi violence.

I think O'Reilly should have spent less time thinking up a juvenile way to twist Jurkowitz's name or launching an ad hominem attack on him and more time reading the study's findings.

BTW, check out this tidbit from the Army Times:

U.S. media reports fairly on success, failure in Iraq

 

By Gian P. Gentile

From my foxhole-view as a tactical battalion commander in western Baghdad in 2006, the American press, although not perfect, has reported the reality of the Iraq war.

Contrary to what most believe in the American military, as well as some conservative columnists and a few politicians, the American press does give a reasonably full, fair and balanced picture of what is happening in Iraq.