The casualties hypothesis is cited in social science literature as a principle consideration of U.S. foreign policy decision makers and military planners when faced with the option of using military force. Its basic premise is the U.S. public will not tolerate the loss of U.S. lives in military operations. If that were always the case, however, how was it that President Bush was re-elected by a comfortable margin after the U.S. death toll in Iraq exceeded 1,000? Drawing from communication research in priming and framing, this study employs a content analysis to examine news coverage of U.S. military deaths in Iraq over a 23 month period. The resulting data are then used in an analysis of presidential approval ratings and whether the public felt the war was worth it in an effort to test the influence of media coverage on public opinion. The results indicate that media coverage of U.S. military deaths in Iraq was predominantly of an episodic and technical nature and was not significantly correlated with public opinion. Cumulative deaths in Iraq, however, were correlated with presidential approval and whether the public felt the war was worth it, lending support to the casualties hypothesis.