Iraq is back. Shouldered off the front page in recent months by hurricanes and other news -- and, perhaps, reader fatigue -- coverage of the U.S campaign in Iraq suddenly has become big news again.

Iraq-related stories claimed front-page real estate in The News & Observer on six of the seven days through Friday, reflecting a trend that has seen the coverage go from somnolent to urgent. That's if front-page attention is any measure of readers' and editors' attention. In September, The N&O published front-page stories about Iraq on only three days. The numbers increased to nine days in October and 15 in November.

There are reasons for that not related to what's going on in Iraq. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita dominated news coverage in September. There were elections, a lottery scandal and other big local news stories in October. But some kind of tipping point was reached in mid-October that moved Iraq coverage to the front burner. (Eight of the nine front-page Iraq stories published in October came in the last half of the month.)

I asked Eric Frederick, The N&O's front-page editor, if editors had consciously decided to give more display to Iraq. No, he said, and he was in fact surprised at the front-page numbers. But he did note that he and Ann Kennedy, the Nation & World editor, had more recently been pre-planning front-page coverage for Iraq stories, in anticipation of upcoming news events. Thus, Thursday's paper featured a full page of coverage, pictures and reaction to President Bush's much-awaited "strategy for victory in Iraq."

I wondered if readers felt they were being adequately served by The N&O's Iraq War coverage, and so I asked members of our Reader Advisory Panel, a group of subscribers whom we occasionally ask about news coverage. Of the 87 readers who responded to an e-mail survey, 58 percent said they were satisfied with the Iraq coverage they were getting from the paper. Those who were not cited numerous reasons -- not enough depth, not enough front-page coverage, too anti-Bush administration, too pro-Bush administration.

I was more interested in the response to another question. The paper gets a lot of criticism for not providing enough "positive news" from Iraq -- infrastructure rebuilding, political stabilization, troop relations with Iraqi citizens. Fifty-nine percent of the readers disagreed with that criticism, saying the newspaper's attention properly was on the fighting and its consequences. "While I do think we all need to be reminded periodically that, in fact, some good things are happening in Iraq, the magnitude of the military/terrorism activities is so great that, unless that part of the equation can be brought under control, nothing in the 'good news' area makes any long-term difference," wrote M.S. Clark of Goldsboro.

A contrasting view came from reader Smoke Betts of Cape Carteret. "N&O coverage of Iraq is heavily tilted toward the pull-out position with continuous emphasis on problems, while overlooking progress. N&O coverage is clearly attempting to convince the public of its own political position on the issue."

This might be a good time to bring in The N&O's editorial position on the Iraq War. We should emphasize, as I keep trying to remind readers, that editorial and news coverage are separate functions at The N&O, as at most papers, and the editors in each area do not tell each other what to do. It might surprise you to know that The N&O's editorial position has been supportive of the United States' involvement in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, although mindful of the costs. As recently as last Thursday the editorial page opined that setting a withdrawal deadline for U.S. forces would not help achieve the goal of establishing a stable democracy.

That said, some of the questions about the fairness of the paper's coverage are understandable. Last week, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman returned from his fourth trip to Iraq to report, in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, "real progress there." That assessment by the Democrats' former vice presidential candidate somehow did not find its way into many newspapers, including The News & Observer, and conservative readers questioned whether we were hiding that message. Kennedy, The N&O's Nation & World editor, said the paper's wire services did not provide a story. That's a problem.

The recent ramping-up of the Iraq news coverage, of course, is news-driven. Democrats have gotten more aggressive in criticism of the Iraq policy, and the Bush administration has gone on the offensive in defending its conduct of the war. High points were reached with the call for troop withdrawal by Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha on Nov. 17 and President Bush's victory strategy speech last week. The newspapers were simply reporting the news.

But many readers indicated in their surveys last week that they expected more in-depth coverage, which newspapers are better equipped to do than television or radio. An example is a front-page piece that ran last Sunday, from The N&O's Washington Bureau, that examined the reasons -- beyond weapons of mass destruction -- that led us into the Iraq War. "What coverage there is has been good, but I would like to see more depth and breadth to the Iraq war story," wrote Sally Godfrey of Cary. "There are so many 'talking points' -- p.r. statements, spin, that get reported as news -- hardly enough for a true picture to make well-informed decisions. More hard facts about why we went to war are needed."

That reminded me of comments about Iraq war coverage by Michael Getler, who until recently held the position similar to mine at The Washington Post. He said in his final column that the greatest failing of the press during his time was not scrutinizing the rationale for getting into the war. "As I look back at the past five years in this job, that is by far the single most important and most disappointing performance by the press, including The Post," Getler wrote.

Along those lines another reader, Michael Silverstein of Cary, offered advice that could stand for any kind of newspaper coverage, not just of Iraq: "Gather the facts, present them clearly and fairly, provide good analysis and don't be cowed. Given the many alternative sources for information, if mainstream media blows it again, they may never be given another chance."