Rich Lowry has an excellent column pointing out the lack of media coverage of Iraq's improving situation. A complaint about the media echoed by Victor Davis Hansson's piece, "When Good News is No News":
The Abu Ghraib prison scandal of 2004 warranted 32 consecutive days on The New York Times’ front page. Congressional appeals for timetables and scheduled withdrawals, amid cries of “fiasco” and “quagmire,” were regularly reported this summer. Now, though, there is largely silence in newspaper headlines about the growing peace in Anbar province.
Almost as if in reply comes this from the Washington Post. Barely into the article is this sentence:
The lack of political progress calls into question the core rationale behind the troop buildup President Bush announced in January, which was premised on the notion that improved security would create space for Iraqis to arrive at new power-sharing arrangements.
So that's going to be the new line. Minimize the progress on the ground and declare the surge a failure because the Iraqi pols can't get themselves together. Maybe we were better off when they were ignoring the situation.
In the realm of ignoring a situation, Joel Mowbray chides the lack of interest in the terrorism case of the students stopped in South Carolina with explosives in the trunk. Despite all sorts of lurid details, Mowbray makes the point that only Michelle Malkin and a few others have done any reporting:
...this compelling drama has drawn scant attention from the mainstream media. And while apologists might attempt to write off the paucity of coverage for various reasons, a slew of other terrorism cases since 9/11 have been met with the same media disinterest.
Read it here. Also on Townhall.com is a complaint about the media's treatment of Mrs. Clinton. You can read that one here.