Maybe if they spent fewer pages on innuendo...

...they'd have more room for news.

The Tribune ran a piece this morning, (it can be found online here) under the headline:

U.S. Treatment of its Captives Ignites Concern. Perceived brutality tarnishing country's image among critics.

How's this for an opener:

Secret prisons in Eastern Europe. Illegal detentions. Suspects snatched off
the streets and shipped without extradition to other countries for harsh
interrogation. Government directives cloaked in secrecy. 

A flashback to Stalin's Soviet Union?

Hardly.

Now, let's think about this. "Perceived brutality" is "tarnishing" our image, not real brutality, but perceived brutality. With who? Our supporters? No, our critics. In other words, the people that hate us are apparently seizing on their perceptions to hate us more. There's some hard news!

"Some European commentators and politicians are suggesting that the U.S." maintains gulags. He makes a reference to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, but is mysteriously quiet about any facts to support his breathless allegations.

So, where's the story? Oh, yeah, the press needs to hammer Bush because it appears his poll numbers are coming back up. So let's run a front-page article with some unsubstantiated "suggestions" by a bunch of pansey-assed European leaders that maybe we're doing something they don't like.

This isviciouss and disingenuous. And I pay for it. Dang.

P.S. In fairness to the Tribune, this front-page Op-Ed piece did have a little graphic that said "News Analysis." But shouldn't a "news analysis" be based on some reported facts?