who you gonna believe?

when i sit in front of the machine each morning, i read three newspapers online. i read the New York Times like a good american. i read the BBC to get some perspective on my perspective. and now i read The Age, one of Australia's best papers, to turn my perspective on its head and discover who knifed who's baby while wrasslin' a crocodile.

i read them in that order.

but when i got to The Age today, i noticed their top headline was about David Hicks. this isn't so surprising. people are pretty upset here about the fact that Hicks has been locked up for five years and that the Howard government has been unable or unwilling to do much about it. the article says that the "new" tribunal opened with the military judge dismissing two of Hicks' civilian lawyers. it is alleged that the tribunal is changing the rules on the fly. again. pretty important news, i think.

I swung back through the BBC and sure enough, there was the story on their front page. except it was smaller and... uh.. did not mention anything about the lawyer dismissal. it did talk about Hicks' footwear (very important).

and the New York Times? not a goddamned thing. no story. if it's there at all, i can't find it.

they do have the important news that five years ago lily tomlin yelled at david o. russel on the I (Heart) Huckabees set and that blogs are writing about it again. so there's news about news that there once was news, but what about all the stuff that's fit to print?