a bit misleading....

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve
statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases," the study says. In Iraqi
provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks
increased between 7 percent and 10 percent.
The study also found that attacks increased more in parts of Iraq where
there is greater access to international news media, which its authors say
increases the credibility of their findings.

(site) (actual paper)

I heard about this on the radio this morning, and started to get worked up. Then when I got to work I started researching it a bit, and found this in the same article from above:

"The researchers conclude that the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars and say they are concerned that the research may be seized upon by the Iraq war's supporters to try and silence its critics."

We are a little bit worried about that," Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government told United Press International in an interview. "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war."

But he added the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate about military undertakings."There's a body of research, which we cite … that suggests that public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively," he said."

I know the talk radio program is really right wing, but I at least thought they wouldn't turn to blatent misleadings such as this. It's really irritating when people take things out of context and use them as the authors did not intend.