As it turns out, yes.
That doesn't argue well for the current crop of newspaper editors' discretion. But then, as I have pointed out before, they have no "news sense" anyway, so no discretion about what they discover to protect the boys from the community over there fighting is part and parcel of the same thing.
What's more discouraging is that, to most of them I've talked to, the boys aren't part of "their" community
: there's a sub rosa identification with the cosmopolitan elite, rather than their inconveniently present neighbors. Maybe I just attract the wrong kind of editors/reporters.
Tyler Cowen, of Marginal Revolution, has some questions
:First, I fear that the measurement of satellite TV access of different Iraqi districts is a proxy for some other measure of district quality and that the TV programs have no causal role in driving killings. Is news access across Iraq really so different? Can't one district simply send an email to another district: "now is time to kill some more of them?" Second, I worry that the authors decided not to include Baghdad in the results.
The first objection is that news does not cause
insurgency, it's merely correlated with it. The second part of that first objection explains why Baghdad wasn't included in the results: the gossip chain in large cities largely removes the ability to differentiate between newsfeeds that might have US input and ones that that don't.
I completely agree with his concluding comment: Still, if you want a jolt to your system, right now this paper is the place to go.