The local news media coverage of President Bush's Iraq Policy speech mirrored that of the coverage given to Bush in his 2003 speech in Grand Rapids. Bush made numerous claims about Iraq, US troops and al-Qaida, but none of the major daily news agencies in Grand Rapids bothered to question or verify those claims. The story published under the Grand Rapids Press headline, "Early withdrawal would be a disaster, Bush says," cites Bush making the following claims: "a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops will lead to bloody chaos across the Middle East," "Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains in Baghdad," "U.S. efforts in Anbar province are beginning to convince Sunnis to resist the efforts of al-Qaida insurgents," and that "withdrawal would do nothing to prevent al-Qaida from using Iraq as a base to overthrow other moderate countries." The Fox 17 story cited Bush with the claim that the "al-Qaida terrorist attacks are meant to prevent a free nation from emerging in the Middle East." Despite all of these claims, none of the local news reporters bothered to verify any of the claims that Bush. Fox 17 even ran video footage over the President's speech of roadside bombings in Iraq or US troops patrolling streets. Rick Albin with WOOD TV 8 began his comments before the summary of Bush's speech by saying "I have never heard a President's speech that was so direct, so to the point."

There were also few opposing viewpoints included in the coverage. The Grand Rapids Press included a comment from a retired Army General Robert Gard, but the only comment attributed to Gard was "there is no military solution to the insurgency." WOOD TV 8 did interview Senator Carl Levin after the President's speech but the only difference between the two according to Levin was that "the President didn't put enough pressure on Iraqi leaders to make progress." Levin was clear that he will not cut funding for the war, which he and Bush equated with "funding for the troops."

The Grand Rapids Press ran an additional story "Bush's message on Iraq war hits home" with reactions from those attending the speech. There were eight different people who were cited other than Bush. Most of the sources cited supported President Bush and his plan to increase the US troop presence in Iraq. There were a few people who "had concerns," but only one person who was cited was clearly opposed to the Bush plan but none of her reasons were cited. The article did say that she was disappointed that the President didn't really respond to her question, which was whether or not the recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton Commission would be part of the strategy. The story did not provide any context or explanation of what the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended. Those who spoke positively of the President's comments used terms and statements like the President is "listening better," "he is firmly committed to supporting the troops," "that leaving Iraq too soon would create a base for al-Qaida," "We can't pull out. We've got to give Iraq time to be self-governing," "The reality is we're there now, and we have to work our way through it," and "he has a deep, deep mastery of the subject matter." The Press reporter does not ask follow-up questions to the people who made such claims, claims that are quite remarkable. How does someone know the President is listening better? What do people base the claim that the US must stay or that leaving would create a base for al- Qaida on? Also, why is it that when the President or anyone else says they support the troops that this equates to supporting the continuation of the US occupation?

When it came to coverage of the protest outside of East Grand Rapids High School, the local news media tended to focus on whether or not the protest was "peaceful" and providing equal time to protestor and Bush supporters. This was pretty amazing when you consider that there were between 1-2,000 protestors and maybe a few dozen Bush supporters. The Grand Rapids Press story http://www.mediamouse.org/griid/dissecting.php?artId=257 on the protest did mention that two separate demonstrations were organized, but no mention of the groups involved or comments from those that organized the protests, even though one of the groups ACTIVATE, was handing out flyers with reasons why they were against the war. The only sources cited are two women who came to the East Grand Rapids protest, but neither of those comments gave reasons for being opposed to the war in Iraq. Two other women are cited in the story, both of whom commented on the list of dead Iraqis that were on signs at the protest in downtown Grand Rapids. The only real reference to the East Grand Rapids protest had to do with which streets people gathered at and this sentence "Gaslight Village took on a carnival atmosphere as protesters drummed out anti-war chants and slogans." What does the Press mean by "carnival atmosphere?"

None of the TV stations reported on why the crowd was opposed to the war in Iraq, but a WZZM 13 reporter did say "some of the protestors were calling for an immediate end to the war." WXMI 17 did ran a brief comment from 27-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern who spoke at Collins Park and Channel 8 did mention that that McGovern spoke and that the demonstration was organized by ACTIVATE GR However, despite having 1-2,000 people out to protest the President's speech there was no real sense of why people were protesting if you relied on the local news coverage.