Media consultant Andrew Tyndall confirms what many have noticed: The major television networks have scaled back their coverage of the Iraq war.

Is this a “If it doesn’t bleed it doesn’t lead” story? Or is it a “Good news is no news” story? Or is it just continued implosion of the news business, with fewer and fewer foreign correspondents and so on?

Violence is down considerably in Iraq since the U.S. troop surge last year. Under the old “if it bleeds it leads” principle of journalistic priorities, a cutback in coverage is to be expected.

On the other hand, doesn’t Iraq’s rescue from quagmire warrant coverage? No news may be good news, but success should be as newsworthy as failure. When Iraq was diving into civil war, it was news every evening. Now that the decline in violence has opened space for progress, albeit halting, toward national reconciliation, that is newsworthy, especially since the war has been a major issue in the presidential campaign.

Cynics might aver that good news in Iraq would tend to help Sen. John McCain, since he supported the surge, and that good news may be bad news for Sen. Barack Obama, now the frontrunner. He opposed the surge, and continues to call for a speedy withdrawal of troops. But since evidence suggests that he may be rethinking his Iraq policy, can this really explain the networks’ reduced coverage of the war?

Perhaps there’s a nonpartisan explanation. The “Obama vs. Hillary Show” was big news for months, and the “Obama vs. McCain Show” will dominate until Election Day. That, along with the run-up in gasoline and other oil-related prices, and other bad economic news, may have forced Iraq down the list of priorities at television networks. After all, bad news is more “entertaining” than good news: If it bleeds, it leads.

Interesting. But we’ll stay out of this argument.