If Baghdad is now the semi-safe place Bush apologists claim it to be, you would think that a Western war correspondent would have an easier time of getting around the city and doing his/her job without the threat of being blown up, shot or kidnapped.
Apparently not.
WASHINGTON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - Nearly 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is still too dangerous to visit, despite a recent drop in violence attributed to the build-up of U.S. forces, a poll released on Wednesday said.
The survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center showed that many U.S. journalists believe coverage has painted too rosy a picture of the conflict.
Of course, you have to wonder this -- if war correspondents are saying that coverage is too rosy, whose coverage are they talking about? Presumably not their own. And likely not Fox which, if Baghdad were nuked, would do a story about how much less congested traffic had become.
So they are probably talking about how the surge is presented by TV and print journalists/editors/producers not based in Iraq.
This opinion of Baghdad-based journalists is in sharp contrast to the fact that more Americans are starting to believe that things in Iraq are getting better. A recent Pew survey found that 48 percent of Americans think things are getting better in Iraq. Only 34 percent said that in June.
So the "We Are Winning" bullshit is working.
But 87 percent of respondents said at least half of Baghdad remains too dangerous for a Western journalist to visit, with the capital's Shi'ite-dominated Sadr City enclave rated the most dangerous spot in Iraq. Eighteen percent said the entire city of Baghdad is too dangerous for travel.
Here's an idea -- if Baghdad is such a safe place to live and work now, Fox correspondents should drive around the city without a phalanx of security to do their happy stories.
Nah. Never happen.
Shoveling bullshit is one thing -- eating it is another.