Michael Fumento takes a look at Iraq war coverage and think it’s extremely slanted to favor the bad news.

Why? Because he was there.

As it happens, I did go to Iraq. I was embedded with the Marines at Camp Fallujah in hostile Anbar province, nearly lost my life, and returned with a colostomy bag as a souvenir. But before that I walked and drove through the streets of Fallujah, which for some odd reason fell off the media map right after the major blood-letting ended. I reported back on progress in reconstruction of buildings and providing electricity and water to parts of the area that NEVER had it. And I can’t begin to count the e-mails I got from soldiers and Marines thanking me for telling it like it is.

And earlier in the column, Fumento points to exactly the problem I think the conservative blogosphere is frustrated with.

OF COURSE the war coverage is slanted: The adage “If it bleeds it leads” doesn’t halt at the Iraqi border. That’s why when two small shells land in a barren section of city the size of Boston CNN.com blares: “Blasts rock Baghdad near coalition headquarters” whereas the completion of an electrification program or water main gets not a column inch.

Are we then surprised if the media aren’t changing their tactics when they see mortar shells going off around them everyday?

To that “if it bleeds it leads” point Fumento made, I was watching my local news just yesterday and I saw four stories in a row where people around the country had died tragically in freak accidents. Exactly how is this helping me become a better informed citizen?

Politics Perspective On Iraq War Coverage