Internal support, within Canada, is also needed for success. If Canadian citizens don't believe in the mission, then resources are going to be even more difficult to receive. Lastly, and most importantly, support within Afghanistan is necessary, otherwise as soon as forces have left the country, it will simply revert back to their old ways. I don't believe any media source is ever 100% completely unbiased, in today's world. The media industry is far too competitive to simply 'report the news', as journalists once did. Today, as the Internet continues to cut painfully into more traditional news sources' bottom lines, it's all about readership and viewership. Magazines, newspapers, and news channels know who their demographic is. To report something completely contrary to what this demographic expects is a sure way to reduce subscribers and viewers. Each media source has an identity -- an image. Even when the news is clearly against the grain of their audience, media sources often 'soften up' the news.

The...

The New York Times clearly has an audience that is more concerned with political correctness and offending those who support these murderers than the safety of the United States and the rest of the Western World. To simply 'call a spade a spade' would ruffle the feathers of too many of their readers, so they sugarcoat the news, so it's a bit more palatable for their demographic. These media sources, that are anti-war leaning, will focus on the facts that are the most disheartening for the efforts in Afghanistan. They focus on the negatives, like how many soldiers have died, rather than the positives, such as the Afghani people's appreciation for this assistance because they want a secure country to live in as well.
References

Hitchens, C. (16 Mar 2009). Terrorists, dissidents, and copy editors. Slate. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from http://www.slate.com/id/2213867 / .