It really depends on what you want to call a "major source." Most of those were AP or Knight Ridder, regardless of the publication that ended up carrying them.
As for the bad outnumbering the good - that's because the bad over the outnumbers the good, buttercup. I fully acknowledge that it's not all bad over there, and that Iraq (and Iraqis) is far better off without the previous regime in power. But the
significant news, in terms of permanence and impact on the American people, is more negative than positive, if only in the sense that a roadside attack that kills our friends is more important to us than "Unemployment down in Iraq" (especially since it isn't, really, to any degree worth mentioning). Oh, you don't get to say, "Oh, you don't get to mention the AJS, 'cause it isn't liberal media." Dude, the argument is that media isn't all liberal.
With print or broadcast media, being "fair and balanced" doesn't mean always reporting an equal amount of good and bad news. I once said that if you have Candidate A who runs a soup kitchen and Candidate B who eats babies, you don't go out of your way to dig up dirt on Candidate A in the interest of "balanced coverage." For the same reason, you're not going to give the unemployment rate in Iraq as much coverage as you will troop deaths - or troop victories - because, as far as the viewing public is concerned, it's
just not as important.
But I completely recognize and appreciate where you're coming from, and I also appreciate you actually checking things out and doing your research rather than automatically slagging off the media. It's the stuff that intelligent and reasonable discussions are made of.
