Yet another poll has come out on what the public thinks about the media's coverage of the Iraq war. Sponsored by the Poynter Institute and conducted by Zogby International, the survey questioned 8,683 adults in the States.

Repeat -- in the States. So expect a difference between what those folks, civilians, told the pollsters and what servicemembers and their families overseas would be saying. Nevertheless, the results were interesting.

One highlight was a big disconnection expressed by those polled. Three-quarters said they felt they were well-informed about the war, but nearly half said the coverage was "poor." It seems many wanted more coverage of the Iraqi government and Iraqi people, whereas journalists thought they would have wanted more coverage of the effect of the war in American cities.

Stripes tries to cover both stories -- the Iraqi one and the American one -- mainly by careful, nonbiased selection of syndicated sources, such as the Associated Press and certain U.S. newspapers. At the same time, its own reporters downrange are almost always embedded with troops, so as to be able to tell their stories first-hand.

They're supposed to report what they see, be it encouraging for the outcome of the war or not. In that sense, I'd say they're generally living up to an ideal that one reader in the Poynter article articulated: "There are journalists who cover all aspects of the war, the good and the bad," she said. "They are the types of journalists I seek out when I'm reading the news." Good advice.