December 11, 2003

BURIED

Nearly four hundred words into this New York Times report, we finally see mention of the anti-terrorism demonstrations in Iraq:

In contrast, a heavily policed march in central Baghdad on Wednesday, organized peacefully by the country's major political parties, drew thousands of Iraqis to protest attacks by guerrilla fighters, which have injured and killed Iraqi civilians as well as occupiers.

And that’s it. Prior to this paragraph, the NYT runs news of two US soldiers killed and four wounded in Mosul; a bank robbery in Baghdad; a paratrooper raid in Latifiya; the death of a US soldier on Monday; fuel shortages; and a riot.

Over at the Washington Post, Middle East Report editor Chris Toensing had no idea the protest was even scheduled. In a reader Q & A he is asked: "I was wondering why there wasn't more coverage, or any coverage, on the anti-terrorisim protest held in Iraq today. Yahoo had a picture but the story was of Saddam and his upcomming trial."

Toensing's reply?

I've only seen this picture, so I'm not sure what the demonstration was about.

UPDATE. Still no word from the Sydney Morning Herald on the demonstrations, although they do have this important story:

An award-winning drawing blaming President Bush for the September 11 terrorist attacks was pulled from a small-town exhibit over "insurance issues" after businessman labelled it a "hate speech".

The businessman also withdrew his $400 prize in protest at Chuck Bowden's picture, The Tactics of Tyrants Are Always Transparent, which won second place in the Redwood Art Association's annual autumn exhibit in Eureka, California.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 11, 2003 02:05 PM
Comments

WaPo's Toensing: 'I've only seen this picture, so I'm not sure what the demonstration was about.'

Well, like, find out. You're the newspaper guy, right?

Posted by: ilibcc at December 11, 2003 at 02:21 PM

Even when they finally carry the story, the NYT can't get the feel of the event right. This report makes it sound like the Iraqi's would be fine with killing "occupiers" and are only upset because the "guerrilla fighters" are killing civilians too.

More reputable sources than the Times--like say, Iraqi bloggers Zeyad and Omar--have made it clear that the protests were much more than this. The focus was on opposition to terrorism in general, not a narrow complaint about the particular tactics of the terrorists. Unfortunately, this distortion is not the first, nor will it be the last. Ironically, unequivical opposition to evil on moral grounds has become anathema to the New York Times, despite its proximity to ground zero.

Posted by: Nathan Hall at December 11, 2003 at 03:38 PM

No suprise really. They missed the million people protest against terrorism in Algeria about a year ago. Even CNN missed a 20K protest right outside of their offices in Atlanta. This is the kind of journalism on can expect when journalists hire their former "minders" as their current guides.

Posted by: Charles at December 11, 2003 at 03:45 PM

Heres another story that the liberal PC media failed to notice:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1071029337514&p=1008596981749


Hamas wins student election race on Israeli bodycount ticket
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

At Beir Zeit University's student election, which focused on which party had killed the most Israelis, Hamas swept to victory Wednesday, defeating Yasser Arafat's Fatah.

The campaign at the campus near Ramallah featured exploding models of Israeli buses and claims of prowess based on Israeli casualties.

In voting Wednesday, Hamas won 25 seats of the 51 on the council, Fatah took 20, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - a radical PLO faction - won five and the lesser-known People's Party got the remaining seat.

In the last election, just before Palestinians started their armed uprising, Hamas won with a two-seat margin over Fatah, emphasizing its armed struggle against Israel.

This time, Fatah focused on its military wing, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, which has carried out dozens of attacks against Israelis. "Now we have our struggle. We have the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades striking the occupation every day," said Fatah candidate Khaled Samara, a black-and-wife headscarf like Arafat's wrapped around his neck.
During a two-day campaign, the parties debated, marched through campus with war drums reminiscent of the Prophet Muhammad's instrument and waved party flags.

At a debate, the Hamas candidate asked the Fatah candidate: "Hamas activists in this university killed 135 Zionists. How many did Fatah activists from Bir Zeit kill?"

The Fatah candidate refused to answer, suggesting his rival "look at the paper, go to the archives and see for yourself. Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades have not stopped fighting the occupation."

Fatah set up models of Jewish settlements and then blew them up with fireworks. The display was meant to emphasize the group's focus on attacking settlers and their communities - considered by Palestinians to be one of the most provocative elements of Israel's occupation of territory they claim for a state.

Hamas countered by blowing up models of Israeli buses, a tribute to the dozens of suicide bombings its members have carried out in the past three years, killing hundreds of Israelis.

Posted by: Jono at December 11, 2003 at 04:07 PM

Chris Toensing grew up in Boulder, CO. Of course he's anti-Bush.

Posted by: Polly at December 11, 2003 at 04:28 PM

Meanwhile, from the Champions of Human Rights Hall of Fame, this news from the ABC:

'North Korea has lashed out at Japan's decision to dispatch troops to help rebuild Iraq ... North Korea is accusing Japan of trying to become a military giant, and says the Japanese soldiers will repeat the atrocities committed by the Imperial Army in World War Two.'

Three cheers for North Korea.

Posted by: ilibcc at December 11, 2003 at 04:33 PM

Thousands of Iraqis call for end to violence” by Maureen Fan, Knight-Ridder via Seattle Times

Five thousand to 10,000 Iraqis tried to send terrorists a cease-and-desist message yesterday from downtown Baghdad in the biggest demonstration against violence to date.

Of course the only photo they show is one with commie flags. It is a very striking image, men hold the flags as they stand, each one atop a very tall narrow column.

San Jose’s Mercury News has the same article under the title “Thousands of Iraqis call for peace” but with a photo with an Iraqi flag, not the commie flag. Same thing at Knight-Ridder’s Washington Bureau & many other places; this seems the more common version.

Maureen’s article is also in:
Seattle Times, WA
Biloxi Sun Herald, MS
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, GA
Bradenton Herald, FL
Macon Telegraph, GA
Aberdeen American News, SD
Wichita Eagle, KS
Grand Forks Herald, ND
Contra Costa Times, CA
Wilkes Barre Weekender, PA
Centre Daily Times, PA
Akron Beacon Journal, OH
Duluth News Tribune, MN
Fort Worth Star Telegram, TX
Fort Wayne News Sentinel, IN
Knight-Ridder Washington Bureau, CA

Pravda picked up a UPI article on it, “Thousands of Iraqis demonstrate against terrorism” I can’t find it elsewhere. It includes various pics (you have to click on them to see them) including one of an anti-terrorism protest in Basra. With one of the Baghdad pic it says:

People push to the ground a man accused of being a Saddam loyalist, during a march in Baghdad. Thousands, belonging to various political parties, marched to protest recent attacks in the country. The man was arrested.

Nothing new in the NY Times.

Good night, all.

Posted by: ForNow at December 11, 2003 at 07:30 PM

That's just like the Bush protests in London I went to. 400,000 people showed up, and it didn't even get mentioned on most of the US media

Posted by: Colin Gregory Palmer at December 11, 2003 at 07:42 PM

'I've only seen this picture, so I'm not sure what the demonstration was about.'

Let's not kid ourselves about how big-time/big-paper/big-war reporters do their job. They sit around the hotel bar with their buddies for 10-15 hours a day, spend a hour reading AP/Rueters on the laptop, then spend a half hour plagerizing that. If the sound of a explosion penetrates to the bar they might wander out to the street to see what is going on and maybe interview the bellboy. Otherwise most of their 'news' comes from fellow barflys, taxi drivers and, of course, the bartender.

Posted by: LB at December 11, 2003 at 11:01 PM

Agendas, anyone? With or without a twist?

Posted by: joe at December 11, 2003 at 11:34 PM

"That's just like the Bush protests in London I went to. 400,000 people showed up,"

400,000 showed up? Really? Even the organizers of the march only claimed 300,000! (Police estimated 70,000)
Must be another case of the magically multiplying protesters

"and it didn't even get mentioned on most of the US media"

What complete and utter bullshit! Every single detail of his visit was broadcast in the US media - ESPECIALLY the protests - even the miserable little one that failed so badly (at least in the online versions anyway)

Posted by: Michael at December 11, 2003 at 11:45 PM

Glad to see that someone covered the protest. It is sad when the President holding an ornamental turkey up for a photograph is news and a 10,000 person Iraqi demonstration against Al Queda, Baathists, Wahhabism and in support of the U.S. Occupation that included almost every political party, of every conceivable ideology as well as every tribal leader for Shiite, Shia and Kurdish Iraqis, is not considered news.

Gee, no bias there...

Posted by: Mahatma at December 12, 2003 at 12:31 AM

Colin Gregory Palmer wrote:

"That's just like the Bush protests in London I went to. 400,000 people showed up, and it didn't even get mentioned on most of the US media."

The DID get mentioned you moron...most of the major media in the U.S. had to split the screen and showed what your allies did in Turkey to British citizens while you protesting on their behalf. It really helped everyone understand what clueless morons you were.

It was one of those days when you should have crawled back under whatever rock you live under and not proudly show the entire world how much of a clueless idiot you are.

Posted by: Mahatma at December 12, 2003 at 12:37 AM

Well said, Mahatma.

Posted by: papertiger at December 12, 2003 at 03:00 AM

Thanks for the links, ForNow. The Commies-on-pillars photo, plus another from the Knight-Ridder slideshow, was on the front page of the Houston Chronicle this morning. That was it, though. No story inside.

Posted by: Angie Schultz at December 12, 2003 at 03:31 AM

Quite seriously: what the hell is going on?

If the demo really occurred, and I hope with every fibre of my whatsit that it did, why is the main source of info on it coming from Zeyad, Omar, etc?

How is it that almost the entirety of the world's media is missing this?

I cannot believe that there is global incompetence and that every single journalist on earth is shit and I choose not to believe in left-conspiracy theories re: the media - especially when there are plenty of media outlets that are right-wing - both print and electronic.

Why aren't the conservative Brit papers reporting it? Why didn't anything appear on Fox?

Posted by: habibti at December 12, 2003 at 03:46 AM

It did appear on FOX. Check out http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012972.php , and follow the links.

Daniel in Medford

Posted by: Daniel in Medford at December 12, 2003 at 04:07 AM

Iraqis for the "Occupation" by Dr. Walid Phares, FrontPageMagazine.com, December 11, 2003
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11259

Almost 20,000 men and women - twice the number reported by al-Jazeera - marched across central Baghdad, while others repeated the move in different cities of Mesopotamia yesterday.

[snip]

Observers drew my attention to the fact that yesterday's march came after another smaller one, which took place the day after the U.S. President visited their city. They also noted that many of the banners were pasted from Bush's speeches to the Arab world last month. I was invited to make a link. Eventually I saw it. The workers, women and students in Iraq didn't mention the name of the Presidential visitor, but they heavily quoted his words. What's the message here? You can read it on the mushrooming underground websites in the region. People want freedom and democracy, even at the hands of aliens (what the Left calls "occupation" and the Iraqis call "liberation").

Like I said, Bush went to Baghdad, cheered the troops up, & REASSURED the Iraqis about the USA’s COMMITMENT & RESOLVE.

Then 1,000 Iraqis, inluding children orphaned by the war, marched in Baghdad.

The US & world press: Gobble gobble! Gobble! Gobble gobble gobble! GOBBLE!

In the above article, Dr. Phares tells of how the Al Jazeerah TV reporters spoke not only of the march as being against alleged terrorists, but against alleged violence (“what they called ‘violence’ ”), the TV reporters thus making themselves ridiculous for listeners to hear.

The US & world press have finally stopped gobbling—
What if a turkey an unserved turkey
But the Air Force One story keeps changing course

They now have meatier (so to speak) issues with which to avoid a substantial story in Iraq. France, Germany, & Russia have been excluded from $18 Bn in US taxpayer-funded contracts for rebuilding Iraq, because they refused to send troops to help with the liberation even after the completion of major combat operations.

It is hard to see why US Dems like Kerry & Biden are so very bitter about this. One would think that they would take some consolation in the increased odds of US taxpayer money’s coming back home to pay American companies, salaries, wages. This angle seems to completely elude them. Didn’t Kerry vote against sending the money out in the first place?

Posted by: ForNow at December 12, 2003 at 04:46 AM

Colin the place was saturated with the story. The only problem with repeating the story, is that it was only news ONCE, and hardly represents a development. Headline: "British Lefties STILL angry at the US for ______!"

Posted by: Joe at December 12, 2003 at 04:46 AM

I know, my posts are getting too long. I’ll become more economic.

Posted by: ForNow at December 12, 2003 at 04:48 AM

And nobody believes that crap about “400,000” protesters in London. More like 80,000.

750,000 in London on a sunny but chilly day for a rugby championship.

Posted by: ForNow at December 12, 2003 at 04:51 AM

How is it that almost the entirety of the world's media is missing this?

Because it doesn't fit their template of how things are supposed to happen. The only "real" protests are the anti-American ones, the Americans policy in Iraq is a failure, the Iraqis hate the American occupiers, etc. Don't underestimate the groupthink amongst journalists.

Posted by: R. C. Dean at December 12, 2003 at 04:55 AM

Good grief. Don’t anybody tell the anti-Ameriacan media that Zeyad’s friend Omar’s http://IraqTheModel.blogspot.com mentions that around 150, mostly teenagers, were there protesting against the Americans as “the real terrorists.”

I don’t know why I find this stuff so exciting today. I’d better go do something else!

Posted by: ForNow at December 12, 2003 at 04:59 AM

Speaking of agendas, check out the Silly:

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/12/10/1070732281706.html

Needs a rewrite, Tim. How about

Humans Bravely Hold Off Ice Age for 5000 Years

Posted by: mojo at December 12, 2003 at 06:17 AM

Note that the story which shared the front page of the Houston Chronicle was about a NASA training flight.

Of a very large jumbo jet.
Flying over downtown.
Flying low. Turning a lot.
With a "fighter escort" (actually a trainer).
With no prior notice to the public.

A lot of shaken nerves downtown yesterday. My brother reported several police were parked together, watching it.

Posted by: ubu at December 12, 2003 at 06:58 AM

"After September 11th, the United States had the sympathy of the world. There was so much potential. But, in a few short years, Bush and his foreign policy turned that sympathy into hatred."

Colon Gregory http://www.colingregorypalmer.net/london/

Nice site,turd.

Obviously you can't remember the celebrations,
The reams of newpaper print saying They had
it coming. The likes of Pilger,Chomsky and
half of France creaming their pants with joy
on 12-9-01.

FOAD, tiresome little cunt.

Posted by: fred at December 12, 2003 at 07:02 AM

"That's just like the Bush protests in London I went to. 400,000 people showed up, and it didn't even get mentioned on most of the US media"

Yup, it wasn' mentioned at all except on wire services; Reuters & AP, on cable networks; MSNBC, CNN Headline news, on network news ABC, NBC, CBS, in newspapers; the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and my hometown paper the San Diego Union Tribune.

In addition even the organizers didn't claim as many as 400,000 though they were quite happy to get what they did. Overall a decent protest but nowehere near before the start of the war.

Where were you then oh outraged ex-patriate?

Your first political action is to basically define yourself as not responsible and claim "I am one of the good Americans". As usual self serving BS seems to be the motivation of more and more protesters from either side.

Posted by: Ryan at December 12, 2003 at 07:55 AM

Miranda - there were 1000 at the spontaneous march after president Bush's visit. The march yesterday was between 10,000-20,000.

Posted by: Australian Elvis at December 12, 2003 at 07:58 AM

"There is a noticeable element of the pathological in some current leftist critiques, which I tend to attribute to feelings of guilt allied to feelings of impotence. Not an attractive combination, because it results in self-hatred."

It seems Hitch has Mr. Palmer all figured out.

Posted by: Ryan at December 12, 2003 at 08:04 AM

Look, I desperately want the story about the marches to be true. BUT... a small story on fox and a knightrider-wide syndicate plus a small paragraph in the NY Times is just weird.

Anyone who says the entirety of the world's print and electronic media is leftists or anti-American is a fool. Anyone who says that there has been a news-blackout on this march story because the entirey of the world's media is ANti-AMerican needs to check in with the doc for paranoia. It's just a stupid explanation.

Either:
1) There is something not right about the marches (ie. they didn't happen)
or
2) There must be a good reason for the march not being a good enough news story for even conservative media outlets.

No one has given me a convincing answer either way yet.

Posted by: habibti at December 12, 2003 at 08:39 AM

I haven't seen any mention of these marches in the Oz media yet. I looked at the online sites for The Australian, ninemsn, etc, but found nothing. Can anyone provide a link to such coverage?

Posted by: Jethro at December 12, 2003 at 09:01 AM

Hey, Habibti, do you work for CNN?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 12, 2003 at 09:11 AM

Chris Muir's 'Day By Day' cartoon addresses the issue:

http://daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/12-11-2003.gif

Posted by: Carl H. at December 12, 2003 at 09:12 AM

By the way, Jethro, are your fingers broken? If it's that important to you (I assume it must be, since you have posted this same question here and here as well) then I would think you could learn to use a search engine or go to the library.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 12, 2003 at 09:18 AM

The marches happened. Did you read this thread AT ALL? Did you visit ANY of the Websites with articles? If you can’t grasp that it HAPPENED, it will be impossible to make you understand about the characteristic slants & sociology of the news media. I’ve arranged it so that for a lot of the URLs, one can just copy & paste this whole post, for a record including the URLs.

The March in Baghdad! It HAPPENED!

Reuters VIDEO of the march. There’s no narration. Reuters Caption:
IRAQIS HOLD ANTI-TERROR RALLY
Demand Security, Law and Order
Dec. 10 – Thousands of Iraqis protested across their nation for a restoration of law and order on Wednesday.

(Zeyad) http://HealingIraq.blogspot.com/
(Omar) HealingIraq.blogspot.com/
(Fayrouz)http://Fayrouz.blogspot.com/
(Sam) http://Hammorabi.blogspot.com/
NY Times report mentioning it
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7461139.htm “Thousands of Iraqis call for peace” pub. by Knight-Ridder & in at least a dozen newspapers listed in earlier post on this thread. Google on it at http://news.google.com & scores more will probably appear.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11259 “Iraqis for the "Occupation"” by Dr. Walid Phares, FrontPageMagazine.com, December 11, 2003. Dr. Phares is Professor of Middle East Studies and Religious Conflict and a Terrorism expert with MSNBC.
Thousands of Iraqis demonstrate against terrorism, United Press International (UPI) via Pravda.

And there are lots more articles out there:
Iraqis terrorism search at news.google.com

But, WHILE we’re at it, Hammorabi links to this site of interest: 50 Web pages of photos of Iraqi mass graves
http://www.9neesan.com/MassGraves

Posted by: ForNow at December 12, 2003 at 09:27 AM

Hey, Harris, you fuckwit: I am a Middle Easterner, a liberal-democrat hater of the leftist morons who protested the Iraq war, and I desperately want to see the rebuilding of Iraq and my entire region in a liberal-democratic mould.

Very little shits me as much as Western leftists telling me and other Middle Easterners that Yanks are more evil than truly evil men like Saddam. But your mindfucking idiocy comes close. I'll tell you why.

My question about the demos is legitimate and it's important. If this whole demo thing and the liberal Iraqi bloggers somehow are revealed to be some sort of hoax, the liberal-democratic Middle-Eastern cause will be irreparably harmed. We grass roots supporters of human rights and democracy will have a hard time getting anyone to take us seriously.

This isn't a fucking game for us. Maybe it is for you.

Jethro is absolutely right to be asking, and rather than proffering idiot responses, Harris, you'd do better showing us the many media sources we missed.

Posted by: habibti at December 12, 2003 at 09:37 AM

For Now, thanks for that.

The thing is, part of my concern are the blogs themselves.

Still, no one has managed to explain the general silence from the non-leftist media.

Posted by: habibti at December 12, 2003 at 09:40 AM

I screwed it up a little.

(Omar) http://IraqTheModel.blogspot.com/

It’s very near time for me to call it a day—obviously. It is annoying that this event hasn’t drawn more attention, though it’s certainly drawn some. I wonder why Andrew Sullivan hasn’t said more about it. I read somewhere that Brit Hume covered it on FoxNews.

It’s dark over Queens, NYC. I must forage. Good day!

Posted by: ForNow at December 12, 2003 at 09:42 AM

Habibti writes, eloquently, 'This isn't a fucking game for us.'

And Habibti has an email address of f***off@f***off.com

Your question about the demos might have been legit., Habibti, but if it were, you may have seen Andrea's comment in a different light.

You might also have taken care to use a fake email address that wasn't actually obscene.

If you wanted to be taken seriously, that is.

Posted by: ilibcc at December 12, 2003 at 09:57 AM

Andrea,

I asked in three places because there are three threads here on the same subject. Why ask in one place when someone who may be able to provide an answer may be reading another thread on the same subject?

And I did scour the web sites of Australian media sites today and yesterday, and found nothing. Which is why I am asking for links in case I missed any, or in case the dead-tree editions carried the story.

And my fingers are not broken. Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Jethro at December 12, 2003 at 10:04 AM

Ilibcc - I have no need to be taken seriously by you.

I just have a need for information right now. I think there are people around sophisticated enough to distinguish what's important (a desire for information about something that is very very serious) versus naughty words.

Also - think about it for a second: I am a Middle-Eastern liberal-democrat who is politically active, I don't even name my country. I am posting clandestinely at home (I am a female, yet another difficulty) at 2:00am.

Think about it... in my position would *you* be stupid enough to give an email address?

And in my position? If you'd be stupid enough to worry about curse words, you'd be dead by now. Get some perspective.

Posted by: habibti at December 12, 2003 at 10:05 AM

OK. I suppose there won't be much more information for tonight.

Before I retire, I say one last thing to Ilibcc: when you can write in Arabic the way I write in English, then we can discuss matters of "eloquence." Till then, you can eloquently kiss my ass.

Posted by: habibti at December 12, 2003 at 10:24 AM

Well, "habibti," concerning your claim to be from the Middle East -- gee, how can you prove that to our satisfaction? What evidence can you give that you really are "Middle Eastern"? It's a lot easier to prove that there was a demonstration in Baghdad -- which you would have known had you visited any of the links Tim, ForNow, and others have provided, instead of having fun cursing at people here and providing fake email addresses -- than it is for you to prove that you are who you say you are. As far as I am concerned, the only place you come from is Trollville.

As for you, Jethro, when I see an identical comment (or nearly identical) in more than one blog post I don't think "person asking legitimate question," I think comment spam. You're lucky I just didn't decide to ban your IP address. I've already removed plenty of spam from the comments on this site. Also, your question is -- if you will excuse me -- kind of stupid, considering this post is a complaint about the lack of professional media coverage of this event. Of course, you may simply not count Australian papers as being part of "professional media." But how are we to know that? Anyway, I think that if Tim had actually come across something in one of your country's news organs he would have linked it. Of course, the real question is: if a tree falls in Baghdad and the Australian papers don't report it, that doesn't mean it didn't make any sound.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 12, 2003 at 10:30 AM

Maybe no one told the media this would be happening today. Maybe there was a one day only sale at smith corona. Maybe the media want the war to be still on, bloodier the better. With everybody glued to the tube, hanging on every word the network reporter deems important enough to broadcast. Or maybe they're all asholes who have become complacent in their job, and file their copy without regard to content. Maybe they are the enemy.

All I know is my local paper missed this completely. They had a story about old Euros not being elegible for contracts in Iraq. They had a story on Iraq setting up a warcrimes court. They had a story about the Iranian nobel peace prize winner picking up her trinket, pausing long enough to tell the Great Satan how evil we are, abusing those jihadi in Gitmo (whatever keeps you out of the ayatollah's jail, sweetheart). Last but not least, they report that Iraqi officials have stopped the unofficial count of civilian causualties from the war (unofficial because nobody in the Iraqi ruling council asked for a count.) Five pages of Iraq related news, and not a peep about a pro coalition march in Baghdad.

I have the impression the media wants America to lose this war. That makes them a domestic enemy I think.

I could cancel my subscription, but McClatchy News won't miss my 50 cents a day. I think instead, I will contact the businesses that use their paper to advertise, and tell them I will not spend money with them, until they find a better medium to advertise through. By golly, everyone of their advertisers has an e-mail or website address listed under the ad. Just like squishing tadpoles.

Posted by: papertiger at December 12, 2003 at 10:34 AM

Oh man! Does that slut, Harris, actually moderate these boards?

Tim, nice reading you. On to greener pastures.

Posted by: habibti at December 12, 2003 at 10:35 AM

See ya, habibti. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

BTW, there is a world of difference between deleting spam and moderating a discussion.

Posted by: R C Dean at December 12, 2003 at 10:46 AM

Habibti,

Someone who wanted to find you over the internet doesn't need to look for an e-mail. I'm not of the technical sort, but I have seen those that are. It would be easy to find you, if someone was of the mind to. I'm not trying to scare you. Rather, I am warning you to be careful. Blogging about important things is fun and rewarding, but not worth someones life.

Posted by: papertiger at December 12, 2003 at 10:52 AM

Habibti, you wrote:

"Till then, you can eloquently kiss my ass"

We'd have to wait for the camel to get his dick out of it first.

Posted by: superboot at December 12, 2003 at 11:02 AM

Notice how alot of the Bagdad bloggers are dentists? Saddam commited great offences against the teeth of the people of Iraq, now it is payback time for sure.

Posted by: Amos at December 12, 2003 at 11:32 AM

Andrea,

Tim's three threads on the Iraqi marches are all riffing on the same theme: why isn't the media providing coverage of this event?

Two of the articles were about the Australian media's lack of coverage. Or, more specifically, the lack of coverage by the "liberal" media such as the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC.

I'm asking if there has been any mention of this event in the Australian "non-liberal" media (if we have any, that is). Is this lack of coverage a failing of the "liberal" media, or the media in general? I think it's important to find an answer to this question, which is why I asked if anyone can find a link to a story covering the Iraqi marches in *any* mainstream Australian media, let alone the "liberal" media that Tim castigates.

I'm sorry if you think this question is "kind of stupid". But in a thread on an Australian blog about media coverage of an "important event" (in Tim's opinion, at least), I think it is relevant to ask how the Australian media are performing, at least for comparison purposes. It's hardly any more off-topic than the comments above about how many protestors there were during George Bush's trip to London.

As I've already explained, I posted this question to one thread, then realized that there are three threads covering the same theme. So I posted the essentially the same question to each of the three threads, hoping to get an answer in at least one of them. If that sets off your "spam-o-meter", then I'll try to think of different way of asking questions in future.

Posted by: Jethro at December 12, 2003 at 11:53 AM

"Oh man! Does that slut, Harris, actually moderate these boards?"

Bwahahaha! Run, little man, run!

"Tim's three threads on the Iraqi marches are all riffing on the same theme: why isn't the media providing coverage of this event?"

I swear it's like talking to the hard-of-hearing... Er, yeah, Jethro, that's what I said. Should I make the font bigger next time? Tim complained that no, there was no coverage, save for the tiny mention in the NYT. You asked: "Is there other coverage"? But, he had already said NO. As in, NONE. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. NADA. Capisce? As for your claim that you meant "non-liberal" as opposed to liberal, since Tim didn't make that distinction, so I discounted it as trollage. Like I said, I think that if he had come across other media reportage he would have linked it, especially (one would think) a "Murdoch-owned" paper, if only to rub the noses of the leftist-liberal-whatever newspaper people in it. But heck, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Tim has an Evil Agenda and is refusing to post the links to the conservo-rags' headliner coverage of the Baghdad rallies! The dastardly creature!

And yes, next time you need to differentiate between your comments a little better. That would keep you from being treated as a spammer. A simple "I already asked this in another post but--" will do.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 12, 2003 at 12:59 PM

Andrea,

Tim has singled out the Sydney Morning Herald thrice now for not metioning the protest marches (look at the update to this comment for example).

I'm saying: "Well, shame on the SMH for not carrying this story, we expect no less from them. But what about the other Australian media?" I could not see any coverage, but maybe there was some that I missed.

If it was as simple as "NONE. NADA. ZIP", as you suggest, then why single out the Sydney Morning Herald? Is it a failure of the SMH in particular, or is it a failure of the Australian media in general? I don't know, which is why I asked for reports of such coverage from other media outlets, especially since sufficient time has elapsed from Tim's original assertion of "no coverage at the moment" to when I asked the follow-up question.

Additionally, one of Tim's original lines was:

Will The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, or the ABC cover this at all? For that matter, will the News Ltd papers at least mention it?

So asking a question for reports of such coverage in the News Ltd media is hardly the "trollage" you claim it be at all, but a relevant follow-up to Tim's own question.

As far as I can tell, there has not been any coverage by the mainstream media here in Australia. But perhaps I've missed an article somewhere. Hence the question -- a request for more information.

If Tim complains that the SMH, The Age and the ABC (generally accepted by the readership of this blog to be the Australian "liberal" media) have not covered this story, then can we at least establish if the Murdoch media (generally accepted as the Australian "non-liberal" media) are also not covering this story? At least to counter comments that the story was "mostly ignored [...] because it wasn't anti-American"?

Maybe Tim has an Evil Agenda and is refusing to post the links to the conservo-rags' headliner coverage of the Baghdad rallies! The dastardly creature!

I don't care if Tim does not point out the lack of coverage by other media. I was asking the readership of this blog for more information to help make an informed response to Tim's question.

You know, Andrea, I try for reasonable participation on this blog (I've even emailed a couple of articles to Tim that I thought would be of interest), and refrain from ad hominem, abuse, and condescenscion. I'd appreciate it if you would similarly refrain from condescension as well, and from dismissing polite, simple and relevant questions as "trolling".

Posted by: Jethro at December 12, 2003 at 02:09 PM

Okay, man, you asked for it. I was only slightly irritated; now I am pissed off. Here are the questions you posed (I added bolds for emphasis):

The first:

So you'd expect this story to be covered by the Murdoch press, right? Was it mentioned in The Australian, or other News Ltd media? I haven't seen any mention in the online editions yet. How about the dead-tree versions?

I stand corrected; this was the only slightly different one where a different paper with a different ideology was singled out by you. Though I am not sure how your comment does not qualify as a troll, since Tim complained about two specific papers, both with I assume a leftist slant. You counter -- in paraphrase: "Well, so where is Mr Right Wing Murdoch on this, eh?" Implying whatever it is you were implying. (Please feel free to stuff your "I was just asking an honest question" reply, if you had one ready, up your... nostril.) Anyway, you were apparently ignored. Onward --

The second question:

I haven't seen any mention of these marches in the Oz media yet. I looked at the online sites for The Australian, ninemsn, etc, but found nothing. Can anyone provide a link to such coverage?

No mention of the ideologies of the papers from you. Tim was the only one who mentioned papers by name, and I suppose all the ones he mentioned are leftist or whatever you call it over there, but how was anyone to know you were interested in non-leftist papers from your question? And... here is the one you posted above:
I haven't seen any mention of these marches in the Oz media yet. I looked at the online sites for The Australian, ninemsn, etc, but found nothing. Can anyone provide a link to such coverage?

Hey, whaddaya know, it's the same fucking question, still with no mention of differing ideologies or swings or whatever you want to call them of the news organs you are asking about. This time ForNow was kind enough to provide a bunch of links, but alas, they came only from such unreliable sources as Iraqis who were at the rallies and so forth.

I will repeat for the slow:
In question number one, you countered Tim's complaint about some specific papers (leftwing) with questions about specific other papers (rightwing). Since this is the only post where ideology was mentioned, we will, in the interests of peace, call this my "correction" In post number 2, you countered Tim's post about lack of coverage, which mentioned one paper, with a query that singled out no paper, merely used the term "Oz media," which I understand to refer to Australian media in general, not any specific ideology. Your third question was the same as the second. This is where I started thinking "spam." In this post Tim noted the inadequate coverage of a couple of American papers, and then updated with the SMH's coverage of a silly incident over a drawing, as contrast to what he obviously feels are the more important things they could be doing news on.

As for your claim that you were "asking the readership of this blog" to do your work for you -- excuse me, help you out -- that wasn't clear either. And as I said before, why not just look it up on Google, or use these papers' search engines? If you are confined to your home for some reason and can't go out to get a deadtree paper, my apologies. But I assume, since no one else has offered up any links to any Murdoch-owned papers at the time of this writing, then the answer to your question is "No." Now you can climb down off your martyr's platform.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 12, 2003 at 03:15 PM

Climb of your martyr's platform Jethro, Andrea wants it all to herself.

Seems like he asked a pretty plain question for pretty plain reasons. He looked and couldn't find anything, he asked if anyone else had found anything in case he missed it.

Apparantly he committed an E-crime by asking a similar question on three threads.

Posted by: Gilly at December 12, 2003 at 04:09 PM

Andrea,

This is getting ridiculous. I agree with Tim's outrage that this story is not being reported in the media. What I'm trying to find out is whether this is a problem with the "liberal" media or the media in general.

In the first thread, Tim complains that the SMH is not covering the story. Why not? Well, this is left unsaid, but based on past reading of this blog I'm assuming it's some failing of the SMH in particular (ie, its "liberal", "anti-US" leanings and reluctance to promote any good news from Iraq).

So I ask, in the first instance, if anyone has seen coverage in the Murdoch press (assumed to be "non-liberal" and "pro-US"). I've got a feeling that if the non-coverage of this story in the SMH was because of the generally-accepted reasons above, then the Murdoch press would be covering it (for example, note that the Murdoch press reprinted in full the article in the Weekly Standard about the Feith memo, while this issue was ignored by the SMH/ABC/Age media).

I'd done a number of google searches, read the online editions, searched the news.com.au site,but came up with zip. Rather than baldly asserting that the story is being ignored by the Murdoch press, I noted that I couldn't find any mention of the story, and asked for pointers in case I had missed anything.

That you consider this to be "trolling" is beyond me, especially when there other comments in the same thread asking much the same thing without similar accusations of trolling (ie, "we'll see what happens when the papers come out in the AM. What about the BBC ? Did they cover it at all?").

After I posted this question, I began wondering if the non-coverage was more than just a "liberal" SMH/ABC/Age issue. I began wondering if non-coverage was a failing of the Australian media in general, rather than just a failing of "liberal" media that I had assumed.

(Please feel free to stuff your "I was just asking an honest question" reply, if you had one ready, up your... nostril.)

Again with the condescension. I've been polite and reasonable with you, Andrea. Please extend the same courtesy to me.

Anyway, you were apparently ignored

It's not that I felt I was being ignored, but that I felt the question of Australian media coverage was legitimate across the multiple threads on the same theme, and someone who may have an answer may be reading a different thread to the one I originally posted to. The questions were posted in quick succession, before any answers could be supplied, suggesting that I was not "feeling ignored".

No mention of the ideologies of the papers from you. Tim was the only one who mentioned papers by name, and I suppose all the ones he mentioned are leftist or whatever you call it over there, but how was anyone to know you were interested in non-leftist papers from your question?

Why should I mention ideologies here? I had expanded my line of inquiry from asking about the Murdoch press in particular to the Australian media in general. Like Tim, I think this story (and others in the same vein) deserves more coverage. I wanted to know if *any* Australian media had provided coverage of the story in question. Perhaps it was in a News Ltd paper, or perhaps it was an alleged "liberal" media outlet. Better to find at least one report of the story, right?

Hey, whaddaya know, it's the same fucking question, still with no mention of differing ideologies or swings or whatever you want to call them of the news organs you are asking about

Again with the fascination for demanding an ideological position that does not apply. I had stated in a previous comment that "Is this lack of coverage a failing of the "liberal" media, or the media in general? I think it's important to find an answer to this question, which is why I asked if anyone can find a link to a story covering the Iraqi marches in *any* mainstream Australian media, let alone the "liberal" media that Tim castigates". That would seem to imply that ideology was not a criteria in asking the question on this thread.

This time ForNow was kind enough to provide a bunch of links, but alas, they came only from such unreliable sources as Iraqis who were at the rallies and so forth.

I applaud the Iraqis providing coverage of their march against terrorism. But what's that got to do with the question of how the Australian media in general are covering this story? Why do you assume that I would be upset by Iraqis covering their own story, and deem them unreliable?

I will repeat for the slow:

Again with the condescension. I've been polite and reasonable with you, Andrea. Please extend the same courtesy to me.

In question number one, you countered Tim's complaint about some specific papers (leftwing) with questions about specific other papers (rightwing). Since this is the only post where ideology was mentioned, we will, in the interests of peace, call this my "correction"

Thank you for the correction. And this post was the only one where ideology was mentioned because I had asked a very narrowly-focussed question in order to find what I thought would be an immediate counter-example to any defense that no Australian media would cover the story. That I did not find one in my reading of the Murdoch press led me to expand the question to the Australian media in general.

In post number 2, you countered Tim's post about lack of coverage, which mentioned one paper, with a query that singled out no paper, merely used the term "Oz media," which I understand to refer to Australian media in general, not any specific ideology.

Correct. By this stage, I had moved on from seeking an answer about a specific Australian media outlet to Australian media in general. The first question had a narrow focus, the others had a wider focus. There was no need to mention ideology here, so I don't understand why you see that as a failing. Must every question communicate the ideological position of the poster?

Your third question was the same as the second. This is where I started thinking "spam"

Do you think "spam" because the posts are identical in different threads? I understand the problem with spam on blogs, and I'll heed your suggestion to readily note if a question has been asked on another thread.

As for your claim that you were "asking the readership of this blog" to do your work for you -- excuse me, help you out -- that wasn't clear either

Again with the condescension. I've been polite and reasonable with you, Andrea. Please extend the same courtesy to me.

And as I said before, why not just look it up on Google, or use these papers' search engines

I believe I had already mentioned that: "I looked at the online sites for The Australian, ninemsn, etc, but found nothing" and "I haven't seen any mention in the online editions yet". I didn't feel it was necessary to enumerate every search that I tried before asking a simple question.

But I assume, since no one else has offered up any links to any Murdoch-owned papers at the time of this writing, then the answer to your question is "No."

Thank you for your answer. If no one else answers my questions, then that's fair enough, as well.

Now you can climb down off your martyr's platform

I asked a simple, polite, and reasonable question, and for that I get accused of trolling. I can understand that similar questions across multiple threads may be confused with spam, and I'm sorry that you got that impression, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be accused of trolling.

Posted by: Jethro at December 12, 2003 at 05:22 PM

Jumping Jehoshephat! What a ridiculous whaste of bandwidth this thread has become.

Posted by: Nathan at December 12, 2003 at 08:30 PM

The Washington Post’s gobbling Dana Milbank is AT IT AGAIN with the turkey & Air Force One!

A Baghdad Thanksgiving's Lingering Aftertaste,” by Dana Milbank, Fri., Dec. 12, 2003; Page A35, Wshington Post

The proximate cause can be well surmised to be the 10,000– to 20,000-strong march in Baghdad against the terrorists.

It’s as if WaPo Exec. Editor Leonard Downie Jr. & his gang of spinsters were trying BOTH to obfuscate in order to promote failure in Iraq’s liberation, AND to provoke shouts of “traitors!” at them in the process.

Posted by: ForNow at December 13, 2003 at 05:33 AM

Andrea;
I think Jethro is right on here. I couldn't follow your logic at all. Seemed just like bitching.

Anyway, I see indications from some blog info that many media were blindsided by this because the time and place were deliberately kept fuzzy by the organizers for safety reasons. They seem to be emboldened by this success, and are likely to be more forthcoming in advance next time, with press releases and everything.

So bias, inconvenience, and the lack of a "bleeds" story lead all conspired worldwide to cut coverage.

Posted by: Brian H at December 14, 2003 at 11:54 AM