The Skinny: Iraq Report Headed For Salad Bar?
(CBS)
All Blog Posts from Public Eye
Read all 'iraq study group' posts in Public Eye
December 8, 2006 9:51 AM The Skinny Today: Iraq Study Group co-chair says the president must not treat the panel’s report like "fruit salad," president appears to do exactly that. Plus, a sad homecoming for GIs; and the Clinton-Obama sixth grade drama. Check out today's edition here.
December 7, 2006 10:41 AM 
Editor & Publisher has seized on what happens on and after page 93 of the Iraq Study Group report, where reporting of war violence is addressed. Specifically, the report says that "there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq" by the U.S. military. E&P notes that "[l]ooking at one day, the report found undercounting of violent attacks by more than 1000 percent."
Some reasons why: The military does not necessarily count the murder of an Iraqi as an attack. If the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, it is not put into the database. And roadside bombs, rocket and mortar attacks that don't injure U.S. personnel don't count. "Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," notes the report.
E&P sees this as evidence that the press does not "overstate the level of violence in Iraq," as some critics have claimed. I'm not sure one can directly conclude that from the report's findings, which here, at least, are focused on the military's reporting, not that of the press. What one can conclude is that the military seems to substantially understate the level of violence in Iraq, which is plenty jarring on its own. As for press coverage, E&P is at least partially right – since reporters do rely to some degree on the military's figures, coverage will sometimes reflect the military's underreporting bias. Does this mean that the press never misstates the level of violence in Iraq? No. But it does mean that those who see coverage out of Iraq as unfailingly pessimistic might want to reassess their position.
Iraq Study Group Says Military Understates Violence
(AP)
Some reasons why: The military does not necessarily count the murder of an Iraqi as an attack. If the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, it is not put into the database. And roadside bombs, rocket and mortar attacks that don't injure U.S. personnel don't count. "Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," notes the report.
E&P sees this as evidence that the press does not "overstate the level of violence in Iraq," as some critics have claimed. I'm not sure one can directly conclude that from the report's findings, which here, at least, are focused on the military's reporting, not that of the press. What one can conclude is that the military seems to substantially understate the level of violence in Iraq, which is plenty jarring on its own. As for press coverage, E&P is at least partially right – since reporters do rely to some degree on the military's figures, coverage will sometimes reflect the military's underreporting bias. Does this mean that the press never misstates the level of violence in Iraq? No. But it does mean that those who see coverage out of Iraq as unfailingly pessimistic might want to reassess their position.
December 7, 2006 9:53 AM 
The Skinny Today: Readers are snapping up the paperback edition of the Iraq Study Group report -- oddly, it's available online for free. As today's front pages report, it makes grim reading for the most part. Check out today's Skinny here.
The Skinny: Iraq Report Selling Like Hotcakes
(CBS)
November 30, 2006 10:00 AM 
The Skinny, Hillary Profita's take on the top of the news and the best of the Web, appears daily here on Public Eye and on the "Evening News" page at CBSNews.com.
The nation's major newspapers dwelled at length on what everyone is suggesting was a snub by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki – who abruptly cancelled a meeting with President Bush yesterday – and the White House denies was a snub. "The White House insisted Mr. Bush was not upset and had not been snubbed," writes the New York Times. " 'Absolutely not,' said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president."
The cancellation follows yesterday's leak in the The New York Times of a classified memo from NSA Adviser Stephen Hadley that expressed doubts about Maliki's leadership. White House officials "insisted the document had nothing to do with it."
The cancellation also occurred following turmoil in the Iraqi government yesterday, when a bloc of lawmakers loyal to Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr boycotted their duties "to protest Maliki's decision to meet with Bush," writes the Washington Post.
Everyone mentions Bartlett's quote response to the suggestions of a snub, that: "No one should read too much into this." The Los Angeles Times, however, does read into it, writing that "the surprising change of plans suggested more was at work than a scheduling matter among friends," as Bush rarely alters his plans.
"Senior Bush aides offered at least four explanations for the cancellation," writes the LAT, "finally dispatching a more junior official to tell reporters late Wednesday that Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah II had decided mutually that a three-way conversation was not necessary."
Bush and Maliki met this morning privately and in a joint news conference and "said they agreed to speed the training of Iraqi security forces, and they pledged to continue cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq to stem violence."
The Skinny: Snub Or No Snub?
(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
The nation's major newspapers dwelled at length on what everyone is suggesting was a snub by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki – who abruptly cancelled a meeting with President Bush yesterday – and the White House denies was a snub. "The White House insisted Mr. Bush was not upset and had not been snubbed," writes the New York Times. " 'Absolutely not,' said Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president."
The cancellation follows yesterday's leak in the The New York Times of a classified memo from NSA Adviser Stephen Hadley that expressed doubts about Maliki's leadership. White House officials "insisted the document had nothing to do with it."
The cancellation also occurred following turmoil in the Iraqi government yesterday, when a bloc of lawmakers loyal to Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr boycotted their duties "to protest Maliki's decision to meet with Bush," writes the Washington Post.
Everyone mentions Bartlett's quote response to the suggestions of a snub, that: "No one should read too much into this." The Los Angeles Times, however, does read into it, writing that "the surprising change of plans suggested more was at work than a scheduling matter among friends," as Bush rarely alters his plans.
"Senior Bush aides offered at least four explanations for the cancellation," writes the LAT, "finally dispatching a more junior official to tell reporters late Wednesday that Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah II had decided mutually that a three-way conversation was not necessary."
Bush and Maliki met this morning privately and in a joint news conference and "said they agreed to speed the training of Iraqi security forces, and they pledged to continue cooperation between the U.S. and Iraq to stem violence."
Author Thomas Friedman on Obama's Afghanistan plan and the war on terror.
