[link|http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/004154.php|It's like another Vietnam! Only not nearly as bloody or directionless]

Excerpt:

At the beginning of the Iraq War, an accidental helipcopter crash killed several American soldiers. A general said about the accident: "What we do is dangerous. Even in peacetime." Indeed, year in and year out, an average of one to two American soldiers die every day, during peacetime, as a result of accidents. This casualty rate has never attracted any public attention. Accidental deaths in peacetime never make headlines, notwithstanding their relative frequency.

There have been 53 combat deaths in Iraq in the 90-plus days since May 1--roughly one every other day, about half the Army's accidental death rate during peacetime. Yet every one of these deaths has been front-page news. Why?

Not because of the strategic significance of this casualty rate, which is zero--just as the roughly equal rate of accidental deaths of troops in Iraq has no impact on the strategic situation there. And not because such an intense focus on near-zero casualty rates is a standard staple of war reporting. Past wars have, needless to say, generated vastly greater casualty rates. At the height of the Vietnam war, to which liberals longingly compare Iraq, an average of 40 American servicemen died each day--75 times the current rate in Iraq--and fatalities in World Wars I and II were far greater still. Yet in none of these conflicts was each casualty considered front-page news.

It is fair to say that no country has ever had to fight a war under this kind of scrutiny--where the death of every soldier is trumpeted in front-page headlines. It is doubtful whether a war can be fought under such circumstances.

I say:

What a worrywart. Never mind the scrutiny. The public know sensationalist news coverage when they see it. We all just mentally lop off a few decimal points from the hype level.

But the America haters are chewing over this stuff like a starving dog on a dry bone. (Yeah, I should get a new simile, but it's hard to top this one.) Almost makes you feel sorry for them. Almost.

By the way, I'm not yet convinced that this bias in news coverage is motivated primarily by ideology. No doubt there's some of that going on, but I think it's mostly just a sensationist reflex. They're trying to hype whatever sells papers and commercial slots. They figure bad news is the surest bet.