For second Bush. News were posting. Daily death counts In Middle East.

The moment Obama was elected those counts stopped.

We all want to believe that nice guy on TV. Is honest and neutral.

This is almost never the case.

Perhaps that was just fatigue coinciding with a new admin.

Notice how in the first few months of the pandemic the daily stats were front page? Like, every day and multiple times per day. Now we just occasionally get the "USA breaks single day record" second or third level heading with no specific numbers.

But, I promise you in 4 years people will be remember this as "Remember when the media was reporting the pandemic deaths non-stop when Trump was in office but it _suddenly_ stopped when Biden was in office?"

Just like people seem to remember when "Mitch Mcconnell" overrode Obama's veto. The veto both houses and both parties overrode. 97-1 in the senate.

An easier explanation is that it isn't numbers fatigue but a pattern based on the party of the administration. This seems the easier explanation because the supposed audience "appetites" and "fatigues" reflected by editors seem to crest in a predictable way, surveys of industry participant political leanings, industry organization donations, evaluation of article messaging, recordings of CNN editorial meetings, etc.

I think the easiest explanation is fatigue. It requires no conspiracy as it just happens on its own; it set in like 6+ months ago on the pandemic.

Couple that with people remembering things how they want, or believing what they want to hear, and Bob is you uncle.

Would that have anything to do with the disaster of the Iraq War, by any chance?

No. Reporting the news doesn't require weighing in or attacking anyone. Moreover, the "attacks" began well in advance of GW's inauguration never mind the Iraq War.

You haven't addressed why you think it was largely unjust criticism.

I don't think "News" should include criticism. There is a very important place for it along with news, but I think it is important to keep them as separate concepts. Honestly, right now what is presented as mainstream "news" is probably best described as entertainment.

What should "News" consist of?

What has happened. Is this really that hard of concept?

I'll admit I was baiting you a bit there - I apologise. I was running out the door and didn't want to forget.

The thing about "what has happened" is that it actually leaves a lot of room for bad faith reporting. You can never include everything. What isn't reported is just as important as what is, whether it's whole stories, certain viewpoints, context, anything.

What criticisms did mainstream news outlets level at George W. Bush that you felt were attacks? At what point in the lead-up to lies-based invasion do you feel it's ok to say "Bush and Cheney just might be lying here, folks."?

The facts of the war in Iraq were objectively bad. Should the media have hidden this to avoid accusations of bias? The problem is that the same critical coverage did not continue for Obama. Keep in mind too that all major outlets cheered the lead-up and start of the war - it's a big money spinner after all.

The facts of the war in Iraq were objectively bad. Should the media have hidden this to avoid accusations of bias?

Perhaps because it was deserved? If the leader of the world insists on taking abhorrent actions, what's the neutral position?