USA Today Distortion: Count Attacks, Not Death and Injuries

USA Today:  Attacks down 22% since Saddam's capture

Only deep in the article does it mention that the rate of US combat injuries is unchanged and the number of combat deaths is up.  They could have spun it the other way and said the US deaths are up by 40%.

Also, only two reasons are given for the decrease in attacks:  US offensive operations and Saddam's capture.  What about these possibilities:

troops staying more inside the Green Zone or out of harm's way

the Resistance concentrating more of their efforts on Iraqis

the Resistance becoming more organized and lethal, eschewing weak attacks

I don't believe we are winning this war, and Saddam's capture certainly didn't make us safer.  The article gives the opposite impression and amounts to news distortion.

•  Good Catch

  I Hate the SCLM

  Vote for media whore of the year at mediawhore.com

  I think it on the 2 page now.

  by Al Rodgers on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 02:01:40 PM PDT

•  Can't say I'm surprised

  IIRC, USA Today is owned by Gannett, yet another rightward-leaning media megacorp.

  Oh well, at least they aren't hard-right like Faux News or the Washington Times.

  by Mathwiz on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 06:36:44 PM PDT