Huh? There has been a ton of coverage of the destruction of Mariupol. It’s hard to say that’s cheery news for the Ukrainians or anyone supporting them.
Ok, coming from the premise that I'm coming from (I'm pretty set on the idea that all of this is a play to get the west involved in another war by the war profiteers and when it's all over, Zelensky is going to end up a billionaire folk hero somehow.) here's what I see:
- bad news for Russia is pushed to the top of every news roundup, even if it's actually bad news for Ukraine.
- news that should be two sided is always pushing the bad news for Russia. The casualty figures always seem to lead with Russian deaths and wounded but omit the Ukrainian (and western merc) casualty figures
- bad news for Ukraine is pushed to draw sympathy and encourage more support for the gathering war effort, even if you have to engage in a little hyperbole or let the Russian media lines get a few shots in (Mariupol is a good example of this.) Anything to get the US public to think "we have to do something." or "those Ukranians are so brave".
- little bits of good news for Ukraine are pushed to the top of the pile as evidence that the Ukranians have the Russians right where they want them, even though Russian military strategy has never been particularly concerned with the welfare of their own troops or civilians on the battlefield.
- bad news is being reframed as good news (look how far the Russians have advanced... they'll never figure out how to support the logistics trail of such a fast offensive).