Hmmm. I think it's not that good events are reported on of themselves, but that they never form a backdrop or context for reporting from Iraq. For instance, to take one of Mr. Roses examples, it's "police stations overrun in Mosul" without "while things are quieting down in Fallujah". Or "depite the massive repairs efforts around Baghdad, terrorists still managed to cut power to the city for several hours today".

The sewer plant line ... I just couldn't resist it. I did think it was a little absurd, Ryan wanting U.S. journalists to go to ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the openings of sewer plants. But your larger point is quite right, the reconstruction is an important story and deserves to be told. ABC News' World News Tonight just started a series of stories on it that I found pretty interesting, and I think we'll see others in the run-up to the election.

Is the insurgency aimed at influencing the U.S., or at setting off a civil war? I'm not sure. Certainly the vast majority of attacks have been against Iraqis, not Americans, even though attacks on the U.S. grab more headlines. Not everything in the world is about us here in the U.S.

Also, (with all respect) I'm always skeptical of people who want us to report things in a "larger context."

If American deaths were reported in the context of the mission, you write, then the deaths have meaning. If the enthusiasm of many Iraqis for the election ... that would give meaning to our sacrifices.

Well, sure, that's one possible context, and one that would give a certain comfort to war-supporters -- noting prominently the benefits of the war while reporting on American deaths.

I think the Left, on the other hand, would prefer if our coverage of the latest casualties emphasized the cost. "Spc. Martinez was the 1,3xxth American death in the Iraq war, which has cost taxpayers $150 billion and inspired anti-American sentiment throughout much of the world. No WMDs were ever found in Iraq." Etc. Another possible context.

I say, just give readers the facts and let them make up their own damn mind which "context" the casualties fit in.

Context itself is a collection of facts and can merit a story of its own. There is no need for a report on US deaths to refer to sewer plants or costs, as long as they have stories, too.

The problem is that the bombing gets a banner on the front page, costs are discussed in an analysis piece on the op-ed page and the sewer plants get four or five inches on page B-18.

I agree that everyone should find the context for themselves, but only a hardy few actually go looking for it.

Derek Rose:

I would suggest that your hesitancy about providing "context" is a large part of the public's problem with the press in general.

Leaving aside Iraq, there is the conventional wisdom of "if it bleeds, it leads." Thus, every murder (and most other visible crimes) get plenty of coverage.

But is it inappropriate to somehow place the context of whether the murder rate is rising or falling into these stories? No, the family of the murder victim doesn't care if the national or local murder rate has fallen by 20% year-on-year. But surely it provides the viewer (aka, the consumer or customer) with some sense of whether this is a unique or ubiquitous occurrence? And whether the efforts of the police and courts are working?

That this somehow seems inappropriate says much about what the MSM thinks its job is. That viewership/readership is falling should be an indication of what we, the consumers, think of how well you're DOING your job.

Lurking, that's a good point ... although we write a lot of murder stories; giving readers the same information each time wouldn't serve much purpose. I think our readers are aware that the nyc murder rate is a fraction of what it was 10, 15 years ago.

But I'm not, in principle, opposed to what you say. However crime is a pretty non-partisan issue, unlike the war in Iraq, where there's two competing naratives going on.

And our readership is actually pretty stable, though, thanks.

Doug, I'd be surprised to even see an Iraqi sewer story on page B18... but there's been some interesting broader Iraq reconstruction stories in the past few days and I expect to see more as the election approaches.

Who provides you with the figures on readership, Newsday?

And if you don't mention that murder rates in NYC are lower today than 15 years ago, but you cover all the murders, do you really think that our readers are aware that the nyc murder rate is a fraction of what it was 10, 15 years ago?

Lurking, because it's a subject we regularly cover.

* Jan. 2, 2005: "Violent city deaths hit historic lows" - long "special report."

* Jan. 2, 2005: "The Safety Squad", an editorial praising FDNY and NYPD for lowering crime rate.

* Dec. 28, 2004: Murder rate dips, off 70% since '93

* Oct. 25, 2004: N.Y. crime rate falls again "Major crimes across New York State fell for the 10th consecutive year in 2003, according to preliminary FBI data released early today."

* Oct 1, 2004: Death (mostly) by association"Random murder is becoming largely a thing of the past on the streets of New York."

* July 1, 2004: (no link, sorry) "City's murder rate continues long decline" - looking at crime rate for first six months of the year.

That's only going back through July. But you get the idea. And I'm not even counting all the political stories where Mayor Bloomberg has called attention to the decrease in crime.