Let me clarify. I know the daily headlines are on the war but it’s just an impression of mine from reading your posting of the Times daily papers that the lead headline is usually the “RED ARMY.....” this or the “RED ARMY....” that followed by the US & British war fighting gains.
Maybe most US newspapers focused stongly on the Red Army land war in Europe. Just an impression, I could be wrong.
Many thanks for doing this daily thread.
It sure can seem that way, but consider this. From June of 1941 to December there really wasn’t another story. The African front was not moving the way the Nazi push into Germany was. After the U. S. entered the war it wasn’t until April before we did anything of note, again eastern front is the most active front and therefore the biggest story. You have items on the African front, but its just not daily. The eastern front is active every single day.
Even now. We have the island hopping in the Pacific, but not much is coming out of there because there are issues with getting the word out logistically, and there is stricter censorship in that theater. The Italian campaign is hardly moving at all; you can see how close we are to Rome, but as you and I know they wont get there until June. Not much to report there.
But on the eastern front, there is a lot of movement. Big front, big movement, more story lines. I’m not saying that you are entirely wrong, but I’m just looking at the overall picture and that is my general impression.
Now I get it.
During certain periods it does look like the war in the east gets more coverage than theaters where the western Allies are in action. I have a spreadsheet that shows the headlines stacked up in chronological order from 1939 to the present. My impression from looking at that confirms CougarGA7's explanation that the headlines follow the hot spots fairly closely. During flare-ups or new operations in the Pacific or Europe - such as the Tarawa landings or [ahem] hypothetical landings behind German lines in Italy - the focus will quickly shift to the scene of the new action. But there is always something happening in the east.
The only thing I have spotted that would qualify as biased reporting on the part of the Times is that occasionally they will paint a rosier picture than is justified by the facts. The strategic bombing campaign in Europe is an example. The more heavy bombers lost on a given mission, the more likely we are to see General Arnold give a press conference to explain just how effective the bombing is and how light the losses really are, if you look at the big picture. That is really on the Army Air Force, rather than the Times, since they are just reporting what they are told.