A few days ago I read this piece by Michael Getler, the Ombudsman for the Washington Post. He tried to make the case that the Post has been fair in their reporting on Iraq, even though so few positive stories are printed:

... there is no real "balance" in this story, because there is no real balance thus far in what is happening in Iraq

Fast forward two days, and I read (Via Instapundit) The Untouchable Chief of Baghdad, a damning editorial on the Post's Baghdad bureau chief, written by a recently returned Marine reservist:

Iraq veterans often say they are confused by American news coverage, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report. Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they don't get much notice -- or in many cases, any notice at all.

Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post .... Chandrasekeran’s meta-narrative admits of no ambiguity. For him and his reporters, they report in straightforward, declarative sentences .... The Americans are still bumbling, the Iraqis continue to seethe. So it shall be in the Washington Post, until Iraq succeeds and they can no longer deny it ....

Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either.

Getler (the Post Ombudsman) finished off his piece with this bit:

Over time, history will provide a more definitive judgment about who has been publishing "rumors," the press or the policymakers

Damn straight, history will provide a more definitive judgement!

No doubt the policymakers made many costly mistakes, and they are already being judged for it (and rightly so). But the sins of the press in painting such a thoroughly biased picture in Iraq will only come to light in the future, when (as Johnson says) Iraq succeeds and they will have to admit their grasp of reality wasn't quite complete.

  ¶ 10:07 PM