If you're the New York Times, you write about what you think will influence your readers in a particular direction. You send people out to the battlefield, but keep them in hotels and hire local stringers who accept the idea that they can use this as their outlet for any complaints they have about the Americans. And if it looks like you're winning, for goodness' sake, don't report it. After all, this worked in Viet Nam. Why shouldn't it work now? Besides, you have hack journalists all over the world who will back you up on the assertion that this is good journalism.
Have I mentioned that journalism schools, like schools of education, would better serve the country if they were converted into nursing homes for the elderly and infirm?