I am still not convinced of the New York Times' power to define the other media's news coverage, but let's assume the paper does have such power.
As I have been watching the New York Times' coverage of the Iraq War, there are clear tendencies:
Iraqi Casualties
When it reports on Iraqi civilian casualties, especially with photos, they are almost always (99.9% of the times?) those who were either actually killed or allegedly killed by Sunni insurgents, Shi'i militias, or foreign Muslim terrorists. Rarely do we see reports on Iraqi civilians killed by US troops or Iraqi troops, commandos, etc. paid for by Washington. Just looking at its coverage, the impression one gets is that US troops hardly ever kill any civilians, a majority of whom are killed by Iraqis or foreign Muslims, excepting rare cases such as Haditha.
Targets of Iraqi and Foreign Muslim Attacks
When it reports on the targets of attacks by Sunni insurgents, Shi'i militias, and foreign Muslim terrorists in Iraq, the impression one gets from its coverage is that their attacks' main targets are Iraqi civilians, not US, Coalition, and Iraqi Security Forces troops. According to the US Department of Defense, however, "Nationally, in April 2006, civilians were the target of 11% of attacks; this increased to 15% in June 2006. Baghdad showed a more pronounced shift in the targeting of civilians compared to the national trend. In Baghdad, civilian targets comprised 15% of total attacks in April and 22% in June" ("Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," Report to Congress in accordance with the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2006 [Section 9010], August 2006, p. 31-32, <http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Security-Stabilty-ReportAug29r1.pdf>).
So, it seems to me that news ought to be that, while more civilians have become targets of Iraqi and foreign Muslim attacks, the majority of their attacks' targets are still US, other Coalition, and Iraqi Security Forces troops, but that is not the case in the NYT coverage of the war.
The above tendencies probably exist in all the US corporate media, though, imho, such tendencies would exist with or without the NYT.
The tendencies are probably not shared by the media in the Middle East, even conservative ones. That is why it is important for us to learn the languages spoken there, so we'll know what's being said in their media, though Mosaic <http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/>, Juan Cole, etc. provide some samples from them for our benefit. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>