Even though there are people clamoring for my attention right behind me, I couldn't resist commenting on three things I saw on the front page of today's online San Francisco Chron.
The first is a Washington Post story which the Chron introduces thusly:
Al-Zarqawi alive when Americans found him
U.S. changes account of attack on long-sought terrorist leader
It's that subtitle the gets you to the real story (in the Chron's collective mind, at any rate): There's been a cover-up. The military is at it again. The actual story then goes into all the minute changes that follow a story released instantly in the heat of battle, as well as all the "questions that still remain." I'm sure some of those questions are actually legitimate.
The second striking headline is this one:
Hamas vows revenge in deaths of civilians
Picnicking family hit by Israeli shell, Palestinian officials say
I didn't read the story, but I was just struck by the fact that I've probably seen the phrase "Hamas vows revenge" about 8,000 times. Does Hamas always use those words? "We vow revenge." Do newspapers always have to report it precisely that way? How about something new. "Israel, although aiming for military targets, which is her policy, inadvertently killed seven Palestinian civilians. Hamas, issued it's formulaic vow of revenge. The region anticipates the imminent and targeted slaughter of massive numbers of Israeli civilians, with heavy emphasis on women and children." After all, all the news stories about Zarqawi's death felt free to predict the events that, in the reporters' minds, will follow. I find impressive how reporting on the war so often deviates from actual facts (news) into predictions about the future (crystal ball mumbo-jumbo).
The third striking headline is this one:
I won't address this one, though, since James Taranto already waded through the article and exposed one of the more obvious flaws in the study.
And that's it. No more blogging for me today.