RW'ers SAY that there's 'progress' in Iraq, so why does Fox News cover Iraq the least?

[ck4829]

On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings.

Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.

That wasn't unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC's. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_en_tv/ap_on_tv_fox_s_war

[emilyg]

1. They have to cover Paris.

[muntrv]

2. RW'ers need to go take a long walk in a Baghdad neighborhood, like the

one McCain visited.:evilgrin:

[genie_weenie]

3. They are progressing to zero coverage.

That way the Freepers and Warmongers won't have the silly facts from the ground confusing their talking points.

Because we're makin' progress. The Iraq War progress must be akin to Zeno's Paradox. Always advancing but always out of reach.

[Double T]

4. The reality of Iraq does NOT serve the faux news propaganda machine.......

therefore little coverage. Paris Hilton is a good distraction for their minions.

[Erika]

5. It's Faux Noise

The propoganda arm of the RNC. It's NOT a news station.