WELL EXCUUUUSE ME! Jonah Goldberg, in conjunction with Spoons, is giving me grief for not weighing in on the Supreme Court’s campaign-finance decision yesterday.

Well, I was kind of busy getting ready to go to DC (and otherwised doing my actual job) and trying to get some attention for the Iraqi anti-terrorism protests, and I didn’t really have anything to add to the already widespread discussion of the opinion. I think it’s wrong, and bad. I also think, as Mickey Kaus points out, the decision isn’t likely to have all that much actual effect: “the law turned out to not be as restrictive of speech as most people, including most of its editorial-page supporters, think it is.”

But mostly, I just didn’t feel that I had anything in particular to contribute to the already widespread discussion. I generally blog on things where either (1) I think they’re not getting enough attention; or (2) I have something in particular to say. Neither really applies here. And unlike, say, a newspaper, I make no effort to cover everything that happens.

Sorry, Jonah (and Spoons), if the free ice cream wasn’t your favorite flavor. Want me to refund your subscriptions?

UPDATE: Here’s a list of blog entries on the subject, suggesting that the blogosphere wasn’t exactly silent on this topic. Tom Maguire responds to Jonah a bit more harshly.

For the record, I have no staff. If I don’t get to stuff, it doesn’t get gotten to on InstaPundit. And lots of stuff — including lots of stuff that I’d cover if I had more time, or more energy — doesn’t get gotten to. But that’s okay, because the blogosphere is a big place, and I don’t have to get to everything!

WIRED’ PAUL BOUTIN talks about the Geneva Information Summit, and Internet freedom, on NPR’s Day to Day.

WOW. Lots of people hit the tipjar while I was gone. Maybe I should take the day off more often!

TOO BEAT TO BLOG: Flew up to Washington for the day, to talk to the EPA Science Advisory Board about nanotechnology. Just got back. More on that later. Now, to bed.

But while I’m gone note that although the New York Times completely dropped the ball on the Baghdad anti-terror protests, the Rocky Mountain News had a columnist and a photographer there. Advantage: Rocky Mountain News! Military blogger Iraq Now has an interesting report from the marches, too.

UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis isn’t impressed with the Rocky Mountain News piece. Yeah, as one of Jeff’s commenters notes, it’s from the “the reporter is much more important than the story” school. But give ’em credit — at least he was there. Meanwhile, in defense of ABC News reader Caleb DeuPree emails that Peter Jennings did cover the protests on 12/10, though there’s nothing on the ABC News website.

Also, somebody sent me some pictures of communists marching in the Iraqi antiterror march, and suggested that I’m thus hypocritical for supporting them. But unless I’m mistaken, the communists aren’t the primary organizers and backbone of these protests — as the Stalinists at A.N.S.W.E.R. most assuredly are with regard to the U.S. “peace” marches. If they were, no doubt the American left would be more supportive. . . .

Oh, and there’s one other difference — the Stalinists from A.N.S.W.E.R. were demonstrating in support of fascism and terrorism. At least these guys are taking the opposite position. You’d think that would matter to some people — but you’d be wrong if you did.

ROGER SIMON:

I don’t want to think that Noah Oppenheim is correct in writing that many in the media quite seriously don’t want us to win, but tonight of all nights it seems more likely that could be so. As I type these words at ten p. m. PDT… maybe I missed something… maybe I didn’t click far enough… but I see no reports of the large pro-democracy/anti-terror march of Iraqis in Baghdad today in tomorrow’s New York Times or Washington Post or in the Los Angeles Times(at least on their websites). Or on the CNN site. Or on MSNBC…. Do you think for one moment that if thousands had been marching for Saddam… for the fascists… excuse me “insurgents”… it wouldn’t have been front page news? I don’t. What’s going on?

(Emphasis in original.) I just searched “Iraq” on the NYT website. Not only did I find absolutely no reference to the anti-terror protests in Iraq, the search results brought home to me just how relentlessly negative the spin is on the stories that they do report. This is an absolute embarrassment to the American media — even Reuters and Al Jazeera are doing a better job! — but I don’t know if they’ll even notice.

But we’re noticing. And while the story hasn’t quite been blacked out, it’s close. Readers report that CNN did run clips of the marches, as did Fox (see above). But the biggest story in the NYT on Iraq is that two GIs were killed during a robbery. Roger’s basic point holds: Had these demonstrators been marching on the other side, this would have been a big story instead of the closest thing to a non-story. So why isn’t it a big story when it’s good news? Because they want us to lose? Or at least, because they are, as Noah Oppenheim suggests, consciously or unconsciously seeking “vindication” of their anti-war views?

When you compare what they do report with what they don’t, it seems to me that they’re either glorying in the bad news and ignoring the good for the reasons Oppenheim suggests, or just lousy at their jobs. Or, I suppose, both. Your call.

UPDATE: One of Roger’s commenters points out that the Times did cover the march — as a single paragraph buried in the story about the 2 GIs:

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.

This kind of ass-covering (“See! We covered it!”) is almost worse than not covering it at all. Pathetic.

RAND SIMBERG WRITES ON LESSONS LEARNED, and not learned, from history.

BUT OF COURSE:

Bradley A. Buckles, who served ATF for 30 years and was named director in 1999, will come head of the Anti-Piracy Unit of the Recording Industry Association of America, the trade group announced Tuesday.

“Brad’s appointment should signal to everyone that we continue to take piracy (search), here and throughout the world, very seriously,” said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA’s chairman and chief executive officer.

No doubt he’ll bring the agency’s well-known expertise to bear on the RIAA’s affairs.

TIM BLAIR WRITES on “news so good it can’t be mentioned.”

I HEARD A NEWS ITEM ON NPR TONIGHT about the U.N.’s reluctance to get involved in Iraq. This reluctance seems to me to be a good thing:

Crime, terror flourish in ‘liberated’ Kosovo
Ethnic cleansing, smuggling rampant under UN’s aegis

Four years after it was “liberated” by a NATO bombing campaign, Kosovo has deteriorated into a hotbed of organized crime, anti-Serb violence and al-Qaeda sympathizers, say security officials and Balkan experts.

Though nominally still under UN control, the southern province of Serbia is today dominated by a triumvirate of Albanian paramilitaries, mafiosi and terrorists. They control a host of smuggling operations and are implementing what many observers call their own brutal ethnic cleansing of minority groups, such as Serbs, Roma and Jews.

In recent weeks, UN officials ordered the construction of a fortified concrete barrier around the UN compound on the outskirts of the provincial capital Pristina. This is to protect against terrorist strikes by Muslim extremists who have set up bases of operation in what has become a largely outlaw province.

Funny that we’re not hearing the “quagmire” coverage here.

DROP BY and wish XRLQ a swift recovery after his motorcycle accident.

I’VE GOT MORE ON THE GENEVA SUMMIT and the future of Internet free speech, over at GlennReynolds.com.

DONALD SENSING has posted some screen grabs from FoxNews’ coverage of the Baghdad anti-terror protests.

LT Smash has comments, too.

Meanwhile here’s a story on media coverage from Iraq. Excerpt:

Four weeks ago, MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” asked me to go to Baghdad in search of the story most of the mainstream media were missing. The network’s vice president knew I was a supporter of the war, and suggested I find out if things had really gone as horribly wrong as the evening newscasts and major print dailies reported. What I found is that, in Iraq, the mounting body count is heartbreaking, but the failure of American journalism is tragic.

First, some popular illusions that need to be dispelled: Most correspondents for newscasts do very little, if any, actual reporting. They assemble the visual elements of a jigsaw puzzle whose shape is dictated by an unholy deity–“the wires.” Every day, the Associated Press and Reuters offer an account of the major events in Iraq. If a bomb has exploded or an American soldier has been killed, that is the day’s major event. Barring that, an alarming comment from an American official, like Ambassador Paul Bremer or General Ricardo Sanchez, will suffice.

Sadly, most of the piece is behind the subscription wall. But here’s a summary, where we also get this nugget:

Beyond this structural failure, there is a problem of attitude. Along with freedom, America has brought to Iraq the notorious Red State-Blue State divide. Most journalists are Blue State people in outlook, and most of those administering the occupation are Red. Many of those who work for the Coalition, including civilians, carry guns. This either amuses journalists or makes them uncomfortable. Most of those who work for the Coalition are deeply invested, emotionally, in the success of America’s enterprise in Iraq. (How else to explain why someone leaves an apartment in Arlington to live in a trailer in Baghdad and endure mortar attacks?) Most journalists did not support this war to begin with, and feel vindicated whenever the effort stumbles….

(Emphasis added.) Of course, that’s the kind of attitude that gets you scooped by Iraqi bloggers. . . .

UPDATE: Michael Totten on Zeyad: “He has one of the best scoops in the world right now, including photos, and he’s doing it from Iraq for free.”

Shouldn’t that embarrass some people?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Hossein Derakshan sends this direct link to the Reuters raw video of the antiterror demonstration. It works for me. Check it out.

ROBERT TAGORDA has moved to a snazzy new blog and URL. Take note.

Norman Geras has moved, too.

JEFF JARVIS on the Iraqi bloggers:

All it took was one person. Thanks to the Internet and weblogs — and a little help from the community there — it is possible for one man in a country just coming out from under dictatorship and war to speak to the world, to exercise free speech, to help spread that free speech, to report news, to make news, to build relationships, to create understanding.

That is the moral of the story of the blogosphere: All that is now possible. Anyone can do this. Any of us can support it.

All it takes is one person.

Yes.

ZEYAD covered the Baghdad antiterrorism marches and reports that they were

a major success. I didn’t expect anything even close to this. It was probably the largest demonstration in Baghdad for months. It wasn’t just against terrorism. It was against Arab media, against the interference of neighbouring countries, against dictatorships, against Wahhabism, against oppression, and of course against the Ba’ath and Saddam.

He’s uploading photos, too.

UPDATE: Here’s Omar’s report, too:

[A]fter 2 hours, the crowd was so big, I couldn’t guess the number, but it seemed like the whole Iraq was there, men, women, children, young and elderly of different socio-economic levels, cheering the same slogans in different languages(Arabic, Kurdish, Turkomen, Assyrian). They looked very happy and free, despite the risks of being targeted.

Nobody seemed to be afraid, in fact today I felt safer than ever. I didn’t expect such a response from the Iraqi people after all the terror they have suffered-and still suffering- from. To me it was a total success. I hope more brave steps will follow.

Funny, I can’t find anything about these on the New York Times’ website. Guess the Times has been scooped by bloggers again!

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s the only report I can find:

Meanwhile, several IGC members participated Wednesday in a demonstration denouncing terrorism.

IGC member Samir Shakir said the demonstrators considered any group that obstructed stability in Iraq as terrorist, according to Al-Jazeera television.

Shakir claimed 3,000 people participated in the demonstration in Baghdad, a number which the Arab satellite station said was exaggerated.

Anybody find anything else?

MORE: A reader sends this AFP story:

BAGHDAD (AFP) – Thousands of Iraqis, some watched over by US Apache helicopters, demonstrated in Baghdad and other cities to condemn “terrorism” in their country. . . .

Hussein al-Musaya, a former Iraqi exile who helped organize the rally, said numerous political parties had come together to state their opposition to terorism.

“It’s also a message of thanks to the coalition force for liberating Iraq (news – web sites) from the dictator,” said Musaya, an official with the Liberal Republic Iraqi Party.

“We will not allow the fascists to come back,” added Farook al-Shamari, 63.

“I don’t belong to any party but I am against terrorism and fascism. We lived under the aggression of fascism for 40 years,” he said.

Any more?

STILL MORE: You can see streaming video from Reuters here. Click “Reuters Television,” then “more,” and then click “Iraqi protests.” The marches certainly look very large. And this UPI story says there were 4,000 marchers. [LATER: D’oh! A reader sent the UPI link and I didn’t notice that it’s to a story about the previous march. In part that’s because I didn’t see any other stories calling that march so big, and in part it’s because I’m, er, an idiot and just didn’t notice the date.]

Ublog has more.

MORE STILL: Colin MacLeod has observations on the role of Iraqi bloggers, and Jeff Jarvis is blogging on this, too. A reader emails that his friends at CNN have seen the video but aren’t sure whether they’ll run it.

Hmm. Would they run video if 4,000 Iraqis staged an anti-Bush protest in Baghdad? I think they would. . . . Another media reader sends a copy of a deutsche presse-agentur story (not on the web) that includes this bit:

The demonstrations were “a message from Iraqis to the entire world that they are not in agreement with terrorism and wanted to work for the restoration of the country”, IGC member Samir al-Sumaidi said.

Accompanied by a robust police presence and overlooked by U.S. military helicopters, protesters carried pictures of Shiite leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim, who was murdered in a suicide bombing. Some demonstrators released white doves as a symbol of peace.

IGC member Samir Shakir said demonstrators labelled any group that obstructed stability in Iraq as terrorist, according to al-Jazeera television.

The persons attending the Baghdad demonstration were numbered at between 3,000 and 10,000 people, though al-Jazeera claimed these figures were exaggerated.

Well, we know that al-Jazeera would never exaggerate the numbers of, say, pro-Saddam protesters, right? But hey, at least al-Jazeera is covering the march. . . .

STILL MORE: Ted Barlow writes: “If the situation in Iraq is going to work out, it will be because of people like these.”

AND EVEN MORE: Meryl Yourish emails:

Just saw CNN cover the rally at about 10:07. They showed pictures and mentioned that there were more than one, but they also downplayed it as much as possible, going so far as to say they wouldn’t call this “a groundswell” of opinion, but a sign that maybe–just maybe–the Iraqis are finally starting to “warm up” to the American p.o.v.

Yeah, I guess it’s impossible to imagine that they might be against dictatorship and terrorism on their own initiative, huh?

Meanwhile Tim Blair notes what news media people consider “real news” via the Internet today — Kylie Minogue might be pregnant.

More here.

And reader Janice Brown emails:

I think we ought to explore and exploit Demonstrationgate as a crystal
clear example of the “media’s” failure to function in this “diverse”
world we live in.

It’s pretty lame. And it’s certainly a statement of priorities, considering what else they reported. Sigh. Maybe they’ll cover it tomorrow?

PHIL BOWERMASTER, whose email I referenced earlier, has some thoughts on the Gaffney / Norquist debate.