"The big papers also fail to convey how the protest resembled a carnival of the absurd, with every obscure leftist faction in attendance. For example, there were hundreds of big red signs provided by a coven of conspiracy theorists who insist that Bush had advance warning of 9-11. If I had bigger pockets, I could've collected at least half-a-dozen different socialist and communist newspapers and newsletters. . . . If you read the NYT or the WaPo, you get the impression that the protest was filled with reasonable people who just don't like George Bush. . . . So there you have it. The big papers managed to be unfair to both sides while failing to provide critical information. Let's hope things get better from here."
Indeed. Thanks to Instapundit for the link.
UPDATE: Here's more from Frontpage Magazine:
Who are the "people?" If the American people are 95% college age scruffians who think their leaders are war criminals, maybe Salon has a point. The NY Times actually conflated the street radicals with the Democratic Party itself calling the march "a heavily Democratic street protest." According to the Times, "the marchers carried placards calling Mr. Bush 'the next Milosevic'" referring to a head of state currently in dock before a War Crimes Tribunal. The marchers also could be heard chanting "Fox News sucks."
The Times has a point. The Democratic Party has nominated a man who indicted his whole country, including its highest officials as war criminals more than thirty years ago. The Democratic Party leadership has accused the President of "lying" to conduct a war that was unnecessary in order to line the pockets of his friends. Although neither Times mentions the fact (since they share the agendas of the marchers) the organizers of the protests in New York are the same anti-American, totalitarian-sympathizing radicals who organized the anti-Vietnam protests back then, and who willingly helped the Communists to power on the grounds that America was the greater evil.