No bias on Iraq, media study finds: NEW YORK -- A study of news coverage of the war in Iraq fails to support a conclusion that events were portrayed either negatively or positively most of the time.
(Via Boston Globe)

If you look at the content data tables in this report - scroll down to the "closest video section" and notice that there is nothing for the "human impact" category - while 32.4% of the closest video was focused on "moving maneuvers" - presumably, of troops. Also notice that 14.8% of the Top Sources were "Military Commissioned" - second to the reporters themselves.

As far as the "Topic" covered, coming in first was "pre-combat" coverage at 31.5%, and rolling into second place was "military action" at 27.8%. Interesting, especially in the context that only 6.5% of the coverage showed the aftermath of military actions.

Under the "reporting" category notice that "commentary" comes in at second place (3.7%) but "analysis" comes in at third place (1.9%). Also notice lack of depth in reporting under the "length" category: the majority of the reports, 35.2%, were only 1 minute long.

Whether the "events were portrayed either negatively or positively most of the time" seems a less relevant question when you take into consideration the process and ecology of the coverage itself (collection of facts, presentation of the reports, sound analysis and other such elements). The content of the report could be either positive or negative, but that doesn't seem to matter so much when the "acceptable means" of reporting could itself be quite biased from the outset.

To me if you are not covering the human impact of war, rarely covering the aftermath of military actions, are using military commissioned sources as your main form of information (aside from observations pontificated from inside the Green Zone), and are not offering analysis or investigatory depth to your reports - then you are operating within the parameters of very limited coverage - that seems, in and of itself quite biased towards providing very little information and/or information from a very pro-US, pro-military perspective.

Another note:

The current situation with complicit "news" coverage is especially enlightening considering all of the pre-packaged VNRs being distributed to news organizations by the Bush Administration and 20 other federal agencies.

Schwarzenegger has also caught on to this trend.