The American television news media is slipping out of Iraq, as quietly as they can. This story was reported by the New York Times over the holidays, and it may prove to be a consequential part of the way the war ends. Because it might actually make it easier for President Obama to wind the war down, and avoid a lot of squabbling over how he does so.

The story is, at its core, that there is no story. At least not in Iraq anymore. The Iraq war, as far as the television news media is concerned, is no longer all that "newsworthy." In other words, boring. Barring some flareup or some special event, Americans are tired of hearing about Iraq, and tired of seeing it on their television screens. At least that's the way the news media sees it, and so the media are cutting their losses on a story which they feel their audience isn't interested in, and are moving their assets elsewhere.

From the article:

"The war has gone on longer than a lot of news organizations' ability or appetite to cover it," said Jane Arraf, a former Baghdad bureau chief for CNN who has remained in Iraq as a contract reporter for The Christian Science Monitor.

Joseph Angotti, a former vice president of NBC News, said he could not recall any other time when all three major broadcast networks lacked correspondents in an active war zone that involved United States forces.

. . .

The staff cuts appear to be the latest evidence of budget pressures at the networks. And those pressures are not unique to television: many newspapers and magazines have also curtailed their presence in Baghdad. As a consequence, the war is gradually fading from television screens, newspapers and, some worry, the consciousness of the American public.

. . .

One result is that, as the war claims fewer American lives, Iraq is fading from TV screens. The three network evening newscasts devoted 423 minutes to Iraq this year as of Dec. 19, compared with 1,888 minutes in 2007, said Andrew Tyndall, a television news consultant.

In the early months of the war, television images out of Iraq were abundant. "But clearly, viewers' appetite for stories from Iraq waned when it turned from all-out battle into something equally important but more difficult to describe and cover," Ms. Arraf said. She recalled hearing one of her TV editors say, "I don't want to see the same old pictures of soldiers kicking down doors."

"You can imagine how much more tedious it would be to watch soldiers running meetings on irrigation," she said.

. . .

Mike Boettcher, a Baghdad correspondent for NBC News from 2005 to 2007, said nightly news segments and embed assignments with military units occurred less frequently as the war continued.

"Americans like their wars movie length and with a happy ending," Mr. Boettcher said. "If the war drags on and there is no happy ending, Americans start to squirm in their seats. In the case of television news, they began changing the channel when a story from Iraq appeared."

. . .

Mr. Boettcher is not convinced. "Like it or not, the country is at war and there is not a correspondent to cover it," he said. "Sad."

The whole article is worth reading, which is why I've included such a lengthy excerpt here. What interests me the most is that the likely result of this diminishing focus on Iraq by the mainstream media is that Obama will likely have a much easier time ending the war how he sees fit because of it. The less attention the American media pays to Iraq, the less attention Americans pay to it. And the less attention Americans pay, the less the political pressure to do one thing or another to get America out of Iraq.

This diminishing political pressure was evident even during the campaign. The economy completely eclipsed Iraq as the main voter issue, and as a result the candidates were asked about it less, and hence could get away with vaguer and vaguer answers. Remember when it was a big deal whether troops would be out in 16 months or not? Or whether a timetable for withdrawal was a great idea or "waving the white flag of surrender" to terrorists? Now, George Bush has signed America onto a timetable for withdrawal, and Obama will be able to start moving troops out without much pressure as to the details.

As long as the American public sees a steady stream of soldiers coming home from Iraq, they'll be satisfied. And, barring any flareup or spectacular violence in Iraq itself, most of the media attention will be from the point of view of "Americans watching their sons and daughters coming home," instead of on what is being left behind in Iraq.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not predicting that America's exit from Iraq will go one way or another. I'm not predicting what will happen after we leave Iraq, either. All I'm saying is that with America's attention elsewhere, and the main story being "soldiers coming home," President Obama is going to have a much easier time no matter what strategic or tactical decisions he has to make during the withdrawal. Which is why the story is more important than just "the news guys are bugging out of Iraq" seems, at first glance, to be.

With all of the other domestic and international problems Obama faces, getting out of Iraq may turn out to be a lot more uncontentious and a lot easier politically than anybody thought it would ever be. Having the media spotlight in Baghdad removed may free Obama's hand in how to withdraw from Iraq, in other words. Which may, in the end, be a good thing after all.

-- Chris Weigant