What does it say about the current state of politics that the most scathing criticism of the Washington press corps that I have seen in a while comes from the New York Times' theater critic? [link]

Frank Rich's critique is generally unflinching. He calls the White House press corp "obsequious" and marvels that at the President's March 6, 2003 press conference, "the one that Mr. Bush himself called 'scripted'", not one reporter challenged the President during the eight different instances in which he implied that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. On the subject of the President "going over the heads of the filter" and being interviewed by regional media anchors, Rich observed, "Dana Milbank, The Washington Post's White House reporter, said on CNN's "Reliable Sources" that the local anchors "were asking tougher questions than we were." I want to believe that Mr. Milbank was just being polite, because if he's right, the bar for covering this White House has fallen below sea level. The local anchors rarely followed up any more than Brit Hume did. They produced less news than Oprah."

Ouch.

Rich also points out another disturbing item, albeit only in passing: the Washington Post censors its comics. Observes Rich, "The Washington Post, which killed a week of "Boondocks" comic strips mocking Ms. Rice a few days before her Oprah appearance, relented and ran one anyway last weekend on its letters page, alongside the protests of its readers."

That's outrageous. First of all, Boondocks is among the best political comic out there today -- although Doonesbury still has bite, Boondocks seems fresher. Second of all, what is the basis for censoring comics that criticize the Bush administration? The Post wasn't saying, except to say that "The Boondocks strips in question commented on the private life of the national security adviser and its relationship to her official duties in ways that violated our standards for taste, fairness and invasion of privacy." [link]

Right. Look, if those are the criteria, then I call on the Post to discontinue publishing its Names and Faces gossip column. Today, for example, Names and Faces reports on the betrayal of Princess Diana by her butler; the identity, age, citizenship, hair color and college major of the woman who allegedly broke up Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman's marriage; the fact that allegedly, Uma wanted out of the marriage before Ethan hooked up with this woman; the fact that Time Out New York named Liza Minelli and her estranged husband as among New York's "creepiest people"; and Courtney Love's custody battle over her 11 year old daughter. [link] Yeah, none of that invades these people's privacy.

Now, I have to say that I saw the strips in question in the New York Daily News, and frankly, didn't find them to be that offensive. As a public service, here they are, minus the first one, which isn't available online. Generally, the set-up is that in order to protect the world from Condoleeza Rice, all the characters need to do is to find her a good man. As Caeser, one of the characters, observes, "Maybe if there was a man in the world who Condoleeza truly loved, she wouldn't be so hell-bent to destroy it." As for the notion that the idea is sexist or chauvanistic, well, the strip addresses that, too (though, lest we forget, this is satire, after all, and deserves a break).

[link1]
[link2]
[link3]
[link4]
[link5]
[link6]