Sunday funnies

- Washington Times (front page, above the fold): "Unrest hits Paris as riots spread afar" Coverage seems evenhanded, thorough, but somewhat brief.

- Washington Post (front page - photo above, lead in paragraphs to story on page A20 is below the fold): "Rage of French Youth Is a Fight for Recognition" The age of any "youths" is never given. A20 shows the continuation of this "analysis" dwelling on the gripes of the youth's parents or neighbors. There is only one other item on the riots and it’s on the same page, and it reads like a wire piece covering yesterday night's events. It is headed by a neutral to unflattering picture of Nicolas Sarkozy. The "Outlook" opinion section contains NOTHING on the deadly car-beques, even though it's tailor made for the outlook editors with ways to handwring about class warfare, failed policies of a presumably conservative government, and a platform to display pity for another nations “ruling committee of the oppressed”. The story started more than a week ago and gives them a way to make their laziness look like a thoughtful "period of reflection". Why didn’t they bite, I wonder? Too busy peddling their own polls to their network of ideological Paesanos who screen out the news that challenges their world view on a day when they’re missing the real story? It could be that their appeal to France’s stance toward the US is only an affection of convenience.

- As for the New York Times it’s hardly even worth touching with a barge pole.

Today's BBC (Don't)Have Your Say program saw fit to ignore 10 days of social upheaval 343 km from Bush House and relied on the usual trans-oceanic crowd-pleaser which began with the usual call in responses worthy of Pavlov's dog. Here's the photo they ran:

It's a good thing that there is no world out there for them to report on, eh?