Did Only Two Papers Feature 4,000 Iraq Deaths Across Their Front Pages?

It's a sad day for America's media when the tragic milestone of 4,000 soldiers' deaths is reported and it appears that just two papers -- yes two -- place it across their front pages. After a search through today's front pages, I found that The Rocky Mountain News in Denver and the Daily News in New York were the only papers to give their entire front pages to honoring the men and women killed in Iraq. The Los Angeles Times gave a top quarter of their front to a feature called "Stories Of The Fallen." If I've missed a paper that featured the deaths across it's entire front page then I welcome any corrections in the comment string of this post.

Although a paltry number of papers gave the U.S. troops a deserved front page memorial, other papers -- like the The Times Herald-Record in Middletown, N.Y and Newsday of Long Island, N.Y. did play the news on the banners above their nameplates or on their initial pages. The NewsMuseum has more analysis here.

Let's take a look at just some of the major US papers that left the soldiers out of their main front page headlines. To give a small bit of credit where not much is due, I've updated that The Washington Post posted a small headline in its very bottom left corner while The New York Times had a mention in a story excerpt below the fold. The major newspapers -- some cut above the folds -- are pasted below. No need for more words. The media's silence on Iraq is loud and clear below.

Comments

[NotMyPrez]

Why would the NY Post care? It's always been a rag even before Murdoch bought it. We can change this by not buying their publications or watching their channels. Since that's the only thing that gets a voice in this country, let your money do the talking.

[rh58682]

If you're going to harp on something about this war -- talk about the actual cost -- not the human cost. The trillions spent has been ridiculous. However, when you consider the fact that over 3 million people have died from Heart Disease in the last 5 years or that over 200,000 have died in traffic accidents in the same time frame --- the figure of 4000 does not ring out so loudly...Sorry to be so callous but that's just the way I see it.

[ld]

Let's see now . . . Did I get you right? You said lots of people die of heart disease, so it's OK to knock off more people in a war. Wow.

[jr5319]

What I tried to say earlier but was cut off...

[researcher]

ok here is the reality of america. this is an imperialist and often a war mongering country. so few americans understand this reality about themselves.

[jr5319]

Since the Iraq war began, we've had 4000 US fatalities out of approximately 650000 deployed soldiers. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/bg1954.cfm54.cfm for more info. Out of 650000 deployments over those 5 years - .61% have died -- < 1%.

[CaptainObvious]

How many times have you been deployed?

[nyboomer]

Should it be a relevant point of pride that less than 1% died? Should we not be far more proud if no one died for this stupid senseless war. The war was begun on false pretenses and it is still being carried on such pretenses. The surge did not work so much as bribing Sunni sheiks got the agenda changed and the guns pointed away from GIs. The bribes did not require more soldiers. More soldiers means more money will be spent so that the private contractors can enhance their fiscal standings. At no time has the activity in Iraq enhanced America's safety but it has besmirched America's reputation.

[calirighty]

Maybe it's because people in this country understand that this a WAR and that in war there are CASUALTIES and that the number of casualties have been the most MINIMAL of ANY wars we have fought in the last 100 years. Tell me. What EXACTLY would be the point of posting the news on every front page in America? I have always understood that that was reserved for NEWS. What new news are you expecting to provide us? That we are in Iraq? That we are in Afghanistan? That there is a war? That soldiers are sacrificing their lives for an HONORABLE cause? Sorry. Most Americans already know this. And I wouldn't pay 50 cents for information I already know. Besides, your concern is NOT for a memorial to soldiers. It is your way of protesting the war. Most of us remember and give thanks to the troops EVERY SINGLE day. We don't wait until the MSM decides to "honor their memory" by using big bold numbers.

[NotMyPrez]

Honorable? Please. Attacking, invading and occupying a country because of something you think they have, and don't is about as dishonorable as a sneak attack on a Hawaiian harbor.

[Merlin7]

Spoken like a true Rush Limbaugh couch commando.

[AlphaDoc]

You seem to assume that the "people in this country" all believe exactly as you do--that this war is being fought for an honorable cause and has been worth the cost in lives lost and irreparably damaged. They don't. Pick a poll, any poll, and you will find your opinion is in the minority. It's sad that your method of "giving thanks to the troops EVERY SINGLE day" includes pushing their losses to the back of your mind so that you don't have to see their numbers in the headlines. Sad, but telling.

[jbatch]

calirighty:

[gulopartisan]

Considerably more people have died in Iraq than died on 9/11. What kind of logic kills 100,000 bystanders and loses 4,000 soliders to do it, in vengeance for 12 men killing 3,500? Lidice logic.

[Texas4Obama]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 - the government has brain washed you - it was the people from AFGHANISTAN that did 9/11 --- but then again some people believe that it was OUR OWN government that plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks. We will never really know the truth.