Do Changes in Iraq Mean Changes of Opinion in Washington?

Certainly one of the most powerful issues regarding public opinion to date has been the conflict in Iraq. However, in recent months, the overall state of the conflict seems to be improving. Of course, this means that Democrats who have been on the attack regarding President George W. Bush and his policies have had to take a step back. Indeed, the recent security increases in Iraq have prompted an entirely different way of looking at this for the Democratic Party. Whereas once the liberal offensive could rely on the strategic failures of the Bush Administration in Iraq, the Democrats now must find a new plan of attack, and must also defend themselves against several key policies that were created with the failures of the administration in mind. Of course, there is no concrete evidence that the improved situation in Iraq is anything more than a coincidence, but many are hopeful that this decrease could perhaps signal the end of the dramatic and horrific violence that has gripped the nation since the time of the United State invasion.

While this article definitely does not point out the liberal bias that many associate to the New York Times, it does serve as an interesting connection to many of the concepts that were covered in class. Throughout class, we have repeatedly referred to the tendency of the media, as well as political parties to change their opinions and approaches depending on what the popular consensus is. As the feeling of the major news organizations begin to change, so too does press coverage relating to those incidents. This is also a key factor when we talk about the dependence of the press on sources of power. One of the key elements that Edelman points out in his book is how closely the press reflects official changes. For that reason, we can assume it to be only natural that change in the way the government is looking at the events of Iraq would be similarly covered in mainstream news articles.