CBS correspondent Lara Logan defended the media’s coverage of the War on Iraq during an appearance on CNN’s Reliable Sources. She took issue with accusations that the media only focuses on the bad in Iraq, choosing to ignore any positive news coming from the country:

“Who says things aren’t falling apart in Iraq? I mean, what you didn’t see on your screens this week was all the unidentified bodies that have been turning up, all the allegations here of militias that are really controlling the security forces.”

She says that journalists can no longer travel around the country without military escort and armed security guards, a fact also mentioned by NBC’s Richard Engel, who has covered the situation there since before the war began, in a recent “Reporter’s Notebook” segment on that network’s evening news.

Lara adds:

“When journalists are free to move around this country, then they will be free to report on everything that’s going on. But as long as you’re a prisoner of the terrible security situation here, then that’s going to be reflected in your coverage.”

Host Howard Kurtz then asks what seems like the question with the most obvious answer in the world: “So what you’re saying is that what we see on the CBS Evening News or other networks actually is only a snapshot, is only perhaps scratching the surface of the kinds of violence and difficulties that you are witnessing day after day because you can only get so much of this on the air?” As I just said the other day, in Iraq alone, there are roughly 26 million people. To fit news about every person in that country — not to mention the rest of the world — within a network’s evening news time of about 22 minutes or so, you’d have to tell more than a million stories a minute.

Besides the obvious answer to Kurtz’s question, “Absolutely,” Logan elaborates:

“You don’t think that I haven’t been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let’s see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? ‘Oh, sorry, we can’t take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they’re going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack.’”‘Oh, sorry, we can’t show this reconstruction project because then that’s going to expose it to sabotage. And the last time we had journalists down here, the plant was attacked.’

“I mean, security dominates every single thing that happens in this country. Reconstruction funds have been diverted to cover away from reconstruction to — they’ve been diverted to security.

“Soldiers, their lives are occupied most of the time with security issues. Iraqi civilians’ lives are taken up most of the time with security issues.

“So how it is that security issues should not then dominate the media coverage coming out of here?”

Nearly three years after George Bush landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and, while standing in front of a banner that read, “Mission Accomplished,” told the Lincoln’s crew that major combat operations in Iraq have ended, security is still a significant danger.

Bush did say in the same speech that there would still be difficult days ahead. Did anyone in his entourage think the region would still be so volatile at this late date? If they did, they didn’t make that clear. If they didn’t, one has to wonder how they couldn’t have had some idea of the determination of resistance forces there.

These aren’t unpatriotic questions, nor are they unreasonable.

I’ve been reminded recently of the frustration that many who have opposed this war from its beginning feel. Part of their anger comes from the loss of life and the sheer cost of the war itself. Part of the anger comes from their vilification at the hand of over-zealous war supporters who are hellbent at convincing the rest of the country that those who oppose the war are somehow disloyal to their country.

It goes back to the question of supporting the troops. Is it possible to wish for their success — or at least their safety — while still opposing the action in which they are involved? I have argued that the answer is yes. And that’s only logical: most of the people who oppose the war would list the loss of life as one of their top reasons for feeling the way they do. So who would hate the loss of life and hope for the failure of our troops, when, in that volatile situation, their failure would most likely mean their deaths? It doesn’t add up.

I have no doubt that our soldiers are helping to accomplish some positive changes in the country. I hope they’re able to accomplish much more and that they are able to do so without one more loss. There are Iraqis who are glad we’re there and value our assistance in giving them more freedom than they’ve ever dreamed of having in the past.

The problem is, there are Iraqis who aren’t glad we’re there. They want us out. And they don’t mind killing themselves to take us with them.

It is unrealistic to expect the media to focus on the “good” when so much danger still exists. No matter how many communities are rebuilt, no matter how much more freedom exists for the people, if the security situation is so unstable that reporters can’t reach the “good” or are discouraged from showing it over fears for the safety of those who are involved, that is the story!