The debate about the ramifications of the U.S. troop “surge” that began last winter in Iraq is both highly politicized and highly significant. Critics from the right assail the press for failing to report signs of progress from the surge, while critics from the left fault it for failing to convey evidence of its futility. It falls to journalists to try to cut through the cant and figure out what’s actually happening. Iraq is nothing if not complex, and reporting it no less so.

And it’s expensive. We were struck by the effort that The New York Times made in early September, two days before General David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, reported to Congress about the surge. The Times focused mostly on Baghdad, which President Bush had put forth as the centerpiece of the strategy when he announced it back in January. The paper zeroed in on three districts—Huriya, a once-mixed Baghdad neighborhood fallen under the control of the Shiite Mahdi Army; Sadr al-Yusufiya, a Sunni town southwest of the capital whose residents have forged a tenuous partnership with the Americans; and Saydia, known as a tolerant, mixed district until Sunni militants, driven out of nearby Dora by the surge, began attacking Shiites there. There are many strong articles in print and on milblogs that look at individual slices of Iraq, but by deeply examining three different kinds of areas, the Times was trying to be comprehensive.

The story—AT STREET LEVEL, UNMET GOALS IN IRAQ—ran 102 inches in the paper and included an impressive Web version as well, with maps, photos, and video that put the reader inside Baghdad. We can get some sense of how much this cost by considering the manpower. According to their editor, the writers, Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell, spent...

Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.