This business of whether covering an event either changes or, in fact, creates the event has been around for a long time. During the riots of the 60's in the US - when no one suggested we were about to collapse into a civil war - the discussion was: If there were no TV cameras, would the riots even happen?

As there were TV cameras (film cameras, for the most part, in those days) we could never test the theory.

Non-Western media on the ground - including Al Jazzeera - were much less likely to give us the "on-the-brink-of-civil-war" construct. This, from an on-the-ground observer:

Western press kept saying we were on the edge [of civil war], and made it out like it was going to happen at any time while the pan-Arab/Iraqi media were focusing more on statements from clerics and leaders.

Pan-Arab outlets were putting the blame on the US, but not going on and on about civil war, while the Iraqi channels were talking about unity, etc.

The situation, although not calm, has stabilized a great deal and the Iraqis pretty much did it themselves. This, as opposed to the US moving in entire brigades, to do the job.

The news business at the front end of the 21st century, is built on a foundation of hyperbole: A swan drops dead in France and it is further evidence of the BIRD FLU PANDEMIC!

A piece about upgraded water systems, or increasing electricity supplies is not going to get a reporter on the front page of the NY Times nor at the top of the hour on CNN or Fox.

About the second time a reporter brings in a story about the improving test scores of school children, or the re-emergence of the Iraqi middle class, he is going to be packed off to run the bureau in downtown Norway.