A commenter over at BTC News reminded us that it is useful to remember that a majority of the public probably does not even read the NYT and Washington Post on a less than regular basis, though as media leaders, they probably significantly affect the local coverage they do consume. All the same, a useful exercise might be a periodic polling of local coverage, such as my own local tabloid (which does sometimes have some good national coverage), the NY Daily News. My mom has bought this paper from before I was born, and still does -- even though she has moved to the suburbs.
Let's take an account of the debate over the war resolution that is cynically being used by the Republicans to tar Democrats as cowards. The headline: "GOP Tosses Iraq Bomb at the Dems." The opening paragraphs:
Washington -- As the U.S. military death toll reached 2,500, House Republicans yesterday launched debate on a resolution that would paint anti-war Democrats as opposed to fighting terror. Just days after Team Bush political boss Karl Rove unveiled a strategy to cast Democrats as "cut and run" on the war, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) led a charge to try to force Democrats to vote against the Iraq conflict. "When our freedom is challenged, Americans do not run," Hastert declared.
First, I would add that the Senate followed the script, including Sen. Frist using the "cut and run" frame. One Rep. John Murtha "a Vietnam veteran" obviously scorns. As the article notes, "A majority of Americans agree with [the Democrats], polls show." The Daily News has a regressive conservative editorial board, given to homer sentiments (the paper invited readers to write to Chertoff after the cut in homeland security funds to the city, and let's say he isn't their favorite person). And, the op-ed pages are tedious half the time (a few good columnists though, including Juan Gonzalez of Democracy Now!). Nonetheless, the coverage overall is pretty moderate overall. And, it is what the "average" resident is likely to read, which is not really meant to be a slam, since I loyally read the paper more so than the NYT (it has better sports and entertainment coverage plus comics).
And, the reader is not likely to come away with that good of a feeling about the Republicans' move. The use of the term "U.S. military death toll" is interesting too -- it suggests other deaths, a reminder of sorts. Likewise, the citation of Karl Rove suggests to political nature of this frame, fat boy (sorry, the guy is as unpleasant to look at as he is to stomach) coming off his non-indictment blazing with cynical smearing. It is so nice when chickenhawks hawk their "patriotic" crap. Anyway, it is a bit unfortunate the article did not discuss more about the Senate, since this b.s. is not just being carried out in the more partisan House. For instance, the Republicans forced a vote on a Kerry measure by the underhanded (collegiality and all that) move of replacing his name with one of their own, and offering it for debate/vote. Of course, Kerry has been smeared as a coward as well as Murtha, which is a badge of honor given the source.
This whole matter is sickening, of course, more so than the food cooked by the lead in Nacho Libre. This whole matter allegedly concerns the core matter of our time: the "war on terror" and a conflict that had led to the death of 2500 men and women, and many more injured. And, of course, many more "non-U.S. military" deaths ... you know, the Iraqi people. There is reason for disagreement, and clearly, there will be some politics tossed in. Such is how life works. Nonetheless, the whole point should not to make political hay. But, this is too much to ask of these assholes. This is the bottom line -- they are spitting on the memory of the dead. It is as if President Lincoln used the Gettysburg Address to smear Democrats. Meanwhile, the Flag Protection Amendment was voted out of committee. There is an Orwellian taste to all of this.
The article also notes that Sen. Schumer ("we take all comers -- not just Democrats") tried "pin down Republicans and the White House on a media report that "claimed" [what? a lazy he/she said move here] the Iraqi Prime Minister supported a move to grant amnesty to insurgents who killed U.S. troops. The article also noted that Tony Snow denied such a plan "doesn't even exist." This deserves more detail. The "plan" was suggested and Republicans in Congress did vote some support. This is different from it being in place -- so yes, Snow is right to say "no amnesty" is available now. Spin, spin, spin. Snowjob strikes again, ironically via a blast of hot air.
The idea however was put out there, and darn if it has some merit. It is not something Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) would like to focus on openly, perhaps, and the current situation makes it fairly unworkable. Nonetheless, a ceasefire/plan for peace is ultimately in place, it probably would need to include amnesty. Why would they stop if it is likely their members will be liable to be tossed in jail or killed? And, yes, there is a difference between killing Iraqis and foreign troops -- you know, from the mind-set of Iraqis especially. So though there is clearly hypocrisy here [Atrios], an honest reading of the situation [not present] suggests the idea has merit.
But, honesty is not the main frame these days. Best policy? Oh, such a platitude.