I respectfully disagree.

I think that logic is a bit skewed. I think the press wants to be there in case there is a tragedy. In light of the one two years ago, perhaps they feel an increased likelihood of such a tragedy.

As to the coverage in Iraq, history and economics prove repeatedly *bad* news sells more *papers* than good the majority of the time.

You just made my point:

"As to the coverage in Iraq, history and economics prove repeatedly *bad* news sells more *papers* than good the majority of the time."

In other words, contrary to the assertions of your "conservative" colleagues, the press does not *want* us to fail in Iraq, they are just trying to sell papers...

Sometimes, being subtle DOES make my point, doesn't it?

However, there IS the editorial influence which would not be heartbroken if we *failed* in Iraq so their own agendas could be advanced.

There's always more than meets the eye.

While there is a certain degree of political interest in the space shuttle mission, I submit there is a great deal more political interest with Iraq.

One could even say your examples are apples and oranges.

There are far too many factors which impact the motivations of news editors to make these *simple* comparisons.

Para1: Strong declarative sentence. Thesis made.
Para2: Second declarative sentence, somewhat more murky. Second thesis? Reserving judgement.
Para3: She posits. Consistent with thesis1.
Para4: Victory declared.
Para5: Probably should be para4, claims situation is too complex to be explained. Consistent with thesis2. Awaiting further linkage. Also, evidence.

Needless to say, I disagree with the accusation that my examples are "apples and oranges".

But then again, I have a stake in the argument.

Extensive coverage of the shuttle launch does not equate to reporting of only the *bad* news coming out of Iraq.

The coverage of the shuttle launch was and is more *comprehensive* than I believe to be the majority of the news coming from Iraq.

I do not think (or believe, if you will) the information being reported about the shuttle is being segregated into *good* news or *bad* news or news *favorable* or *unfavorable* to either of the political machines.

However, the same cannot be said about the news coming from Iraq.

Ergo, the situations are inapposite for logical comparison, i.e., the same premise does not hold true to each.

Again, apples and oranges.

The motivations behind the coverage are completely different.

Yes, bad news and sensationalism sells more papers; however, you and I both know that is not the sole motivational factor behind the editorial decisions of what to print. There are political agendas to further and promote.

; )

So, you're like the President and can see into the hearts of people?

Amazing.

In other words, how do you know what the motivations are of the editors?

Jack,

While I cannot directly *read* the hearts and minds (and motivations) of men, any student of human nature *knows* that individuals are motivated by a myriad of things.

Further, often one's *motivations* can be gleaned quite accurately from one's actions, particularly when one voices those beliefs and agendas in editorial form.

Actually, Jack, I took a poll of the attorneys and judges in the office where Christina and I both work and the consensus (of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike) is that Christina, indeed, is gifted and can see into the hearts and minds of men and women.