Those of us who haven't been in a war zone criticize the work of war correspondents at our own peril. Yet, for all the assertions that little or no good news is to be found in Iraq, it is simple to find some on the Internet from, for example, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is helping rebuild Iraq. (Why is it called "rebuilding" Iraq, when it was a sorry state before the war? Shouldn't we be talking about "building" Iraq?)

Billions of dollars of highway and other public works projects; new safety nets for the poor and vulnerable, entrepreneurial opportunities, a free press, leadership training--all requisites for successful self-government. For all the stories about power shortages, for example, how many explain that they are partly the result of exploding demand, a good sign of economic progress?

Oddly, some journalists give little credence to such official, attributable reports. In today's upside-down world, official government reports don't carry the same weight as whispered, unattributed reports.

News often is defined as something that didn't happen before, or rarely happens. So, if indeed little good is happening in Iraq, every piece of (rare) good news ought to be reported with the same fervor as every act of violence--which we're to believe is an increasingly common occurrence. And, logically, less deserving of reporting. Or does the absence of reporting "good news" in a country the size of Iraq actually mean that reporters can find absolutely nothing good?

If all this is confusing, it's nothing compared to the confusion shared by the American public about what actually is happening in Iraq. The media's credibility has become so strained that partisans on both sides have to admit in good conscience that they're unsure of what's real. Obviously, this isn't good for a democracy.