I just finished reading Greyhawk's serial assessment of the quality of new reporting from Iraq. It tends to be a review of the more recent reporting, not a full review since the mid-March 2003.

What is nice about the serial is that it often compares the reporting with other reporting of the same time-frame and shows of how many of these reports have been presented contrast with information available from sources they have drawn on or other independent reporting closer to the actual events reported on.

All in all, it's a great read and very useful for understanding how badly reporting can be without the daily readers who rely on that reporting ever realizing it.

Here's Part I. You can follow the series effortlessly from there. It's up to Part V now but I'm not sure that's the end of it.