Laura Bush thinks she knows more about what’s going on in Iraq than the reporters who are there, and blasted them for not showing more of the “good news” in that country. Today, I talked to USA Today media columnist Peter Johnson about whether that criticism is valid. Listen, then click here to subscribe to these podcasts via iTunes!

I called upon Johnson because of his piece on just how hard it is to be a journalist in Iraq, putting your life on the line to try to tell the story. He quotes ABC’s Dan Harris:

There are “plenty of bad guys who would gladly and quickly kidnap or kill you,” Harris says. “I said to my driver casually the other day, ‘If I get out of this car, take off my flak jacket or get rid of all my security and walk down the street, how long would I last?’ He said, ‘Four or five seconds.’ “

Then there’s the problem of endangering the lives of everyday Iraqis by telling their story:

Simply being seen with a foreigner is now enough to get an Iraqi killed by insurgents, reporters say. As such, normally talkative Iraqis are now more reserved. Many want nothing to do with the media.

Or maybe Mrs. Bush should read the Iraq Study Group report, which says that when it comes to telling the truth about what’s happening during this war, the Pentagon and the Bush administration have been the ones who have tilted and spun reality:

There is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases… For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals.