Arab television stations, however, have been presenting another impression about the fighting, this one being beamed throughout the Middle East.
The image of Saddam Hussein has been largely transformed from brutal tormenter of fellow Muslims to noble warrior taking on the monster that is the United States, the country that kills innocent children.
As shown on Arab television stations, the war in Iraq has little to do with saving the world from terrorism or even Iraqis from a dictator of well-documented brutality. Instead, the war is presented as part of an age-old plot to grab the oil of the Middle East, Iraq being only the first stop and innocent civilians being no hindrance.
Clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinians in the occupied territories are packaged as part of the war coverage.
The words and images being broadcast underscore the challenge the Bush administration faces in convincing the Arab world of the United States' desire to be friend rather than foe, that the war has been waged not as an attack for oil but as a defensive measure to ensure peace, that the country can be trusted to be evenhanded with all parties in the Middle East.
While American television stations focused last night on whether Hussein and his sons had been killed, on the possible discovery of weapons of mass destruction and on coalition troops swooping into Basra and Baghdad, Arab television repeatedly told of the bravery and effectiveness of Iraqi soldiers.
And the stations showed a more definitive product of the war: bloodied old men in hospital beds, weeping women in bombed-out homes, small children who have lost limbs, a teddy bear atop a pile of rubble.
American and British officials have played down problems, such as the security of troops along supply lines. They have exaggerated successes, such as announcing the "capture" of southern cities while fighting inside them raged.
But in many cases, the news yesterday as presented on Arab television was far different than spin. It was not merely slanted but was contrary to reports from virtually all independent Western reporters in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.
This was true on state-controlled stations in such countries as Egypt and Jordan - allies of the Untied States - and on independent stations such as the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera, which broadcasts in Arabic to 45 million people.
"Images can be more powerful than words and such pictures can be difficult to overcome," said Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "A quick end to the war and a quick move to addressing the Israel-Palestine problem could do quite a bit, but as long as either goes unsettled, those pictures will linger."
Some of those reports were filed early in the morning Iraq time, but at 8:02 p.m. local time, Al-Jazeera - which had a reporter in Baghdad - was reporting no sign of U.S. troops in the capital. Other Arab stations reported "confusion" about whether Americans had set foot in Baghdad, giving equal weight to Iraqi claims that they had not and television video that seemed to confirm they had. (At 8:12 p.m. yesterday, Al-Jazeera announced it had unconfirmed reports that Americans had entered Baghdad.)
Americans might have seen as ridiculous, even darkly comical, the comments of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the Iraqi information minister, who insisted yesterday that Baghdad was unscathed, even as the city burned around him. He proclaimed that Americans were being "slaughtered" by the scores, with hundreds "committing suicide," thanks to the bravery of the Republican Guard.
But most reports on Arab television reported his comments unchallenged by videos to the contrary or the reports from print journalists.