By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 7, 2006; 11:00 AM

Now, I could lead with Ann Coulter's appearance on "Today," talking about how Democrats "celebrate" abortion and how the 9/11 widows are "reveling in their status as celebrities" and "using their grief in order to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding. . . . I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

But I won't. Coulter is selling her latest book, which is titled something like How Godless Liberals Are Ruining America and Want to Take Away Your Kids and Send Them to Reeducation Camp Where They Will Become Soft on Terror and Same-Sex Marriage (or was that the last one?). She knows that by throwing some rhetorical bombs, she will create lots of buzz that will help launch her toward the best-seller list once again. So I'm going to pass.

I could sound off on the gay marriage amendment, but the MSM keeps telling us it doesn't matter, it's not going to pass, it's just a political ploy, so apparently it would be a waste of bandwidth. (Actually, we'll come back to that in a few moments.)

More intriguing to me at this nanosecond in time are the questions swirling about the coverage of Iraq. This has become the overriding issue of our time, and while it seems to me that the daily drumbeat of murders and kidnappings has almost rendered moot the debate over how the media are portraying the war, not everyone agrees with that. In fact, there are those who argue that television in particular is sanitizing the war by almost never showing dead bodies.

There is also a debate about whether journalists are aiding the enemy by playing up the work of terrorists (which is, like it or not, news) and reporting on problems with the U.S. military effort and tragedies such as Haditha (which is, like it or not, also news).

National Review's media blogger, Stephen Spruiell , watched my CNN show on Sunday and wondered why the guests (who included NBC's Richard Engel and CBS's Allen Pizzey) didn't display any anger over such violence as the car bomb that killed two CBS News staffers and wounded Kimberly Dozier last week:

"I'm surprised that whenever I see correspondents in Iraq show anger in public, it's usually directed toward conservative commentators who have criticized the media's performance. They express that anger by simplifying conservative criticism of the media down to one single slogan -- 'Where's the good news?' -- and rebutting it with something like, 'In the field of daily journalism, the violence is the breaking news. In Iraq, the security situation is the prevailing story. When the insurgents attack, it's our job to report it.'

"Most of the American correspondents in Iraq who report for the major news organizations believe in the journalistic principle, most infamously expressed by Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes, that you do not take sides in reporting on the war. You are a 'citizen of the world,' as CNN's Bob Franken put it just before the invasion of Iraq, and you check your patriotism when you put on your reporter's hat. This mentality was not as pronounced during the actual march to Baghdad, when embedded journalists were watching the U.S. military do what it does best. But now that the lines aren't as clear cut, they report on the insurgency as if it were a natural disaster that the United States has helped create and has failed to control.

"They are still reporting the news as Americans. But their code of neutrality prevents them from conveying the true evil of the brutal terrorist campaign that targets civilians, including journalists. Insurgent attacks, so often described in passive voice, are described as merely part of the 'deteriorating security situation,' rather than the acts of a cruel and barbaric enemy that must be defeated. 'Evil' is one of those words that George Bush was mocked for using -- it is definitely not a word journalists feel comfortable printing."

But evil aside, don't the tone and language with which journalists report on car bombs and suicide attacks convey that this is pretty awful stuff?

An interesting letter from a soldier in Fallujah , Anthony Ippoliti, to his hometown paper, the Ridgefield, Conn., Times (via Andrew Sullivan):

"How can these groups claim to support our troops while telling us that what we are participating in is wrong? How can they support us if they are essentially saying that our blood and sacrifices have all been given in vain? How can they support us if they say that our comrades and brothers who have been wounded or killed in action have done so for a hopeless and morally questionable cause? . . .

"In Fallujah, the people watch Al Jazeerah. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear that the United States will soon cut and run. The people of Iraq see when our country is divided. When they see rallies to 'Bring The Troops Home,' they see that as a sign that we will end our efforts prematurely."

By that logic, though, no American could ever dissent from any war, no matter how wrong-headed, because our troops were involved and we must support the troops.

HuffPost blogger Marty Kaplan says we need less tabloid fare and more graphic war coverage:

"What would cable news look like if it covered the deaths and injuries of American armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same rate that it covers domestic mayhem?

"Anyone who's watched CNN, MSNBC or Fox News Channel has noticed that what has long been a staple of local television news has now gone national.

"A murder story, or a feared-murdered story, that once would be covered only in its own media market, is now a candidate for coast-to-coast airplay. Of course, if the victim (or presumed victim) is white, female or blonde, chances are it'll be a runner for months; hit the trifecta, and we're talking practically 24/7 coverage.

"So let's see. If you take the amount of time that Greta and Rita and Anderson et al currently spend on a typical day on sensational crimes here at home . . . and divide that by the number of victims, and then multiply that per capita coverage times the number of Americans daily wounded or killed in the war . . . let's see . . . carry the seven . . . it looks like there would no time left for any of the cable channels to cover anything but casualties. No Michael Jackson, no runaway bride, no Natalee; just American troops, doing their patriotic job, and paying a terrible price.

"There is no risk that this will happen. American correspondents in Iraq and Afghanistan note that they are getting less and less airtime for their stories. War coverage is now considered by news executives to be a 'downer.' While it's believed that missing and presumed dead white women are inexhaustibly thrilling to American audiences, comparably detailed stories about American soldiers fallen in battle are thought to depress and fatigue viewers."

Quite an interesting contrast.

I see the Iraqi prime minister is promising to release 2,500 prisoners in an effort at national reconciliation. He's got to do something, with each day bringing new atrocities.

On to the amendment that only seems to surface in even-numbered years: At Public Eye, Brian Montopoli thinks the jig is up, politically speaking:

"I suspect that on this issue many in the national media, who live in relatively gay-friendly cities like New York, side with gay marriage advocates. But one could also argue that they're not that far from typical Americans in the issue, as National Journal's William Powers did in February 2004:

"The coverage of gay marriage has a tentative, muted feeling. As filtered through the mainstream media, gay marriage seems not so much a righteous cause, inherently worthy of our attention and concern, as another strange, colorful chapter in the never-ending 'culture war,' a phrase that appears over and over in the mainstream coverage. The media, which are normally so good at creating heroes, have not yet given us a gay Rosa Parks or even a gay Gloria Steinem. Why? Perhaps the story is still too young. But I think it's also about the journalists. A lot of straight mainstream media people, the sort of people who work at national newspapers and TV networks, would probably tell you they support gay marriage, but in a vague this-is-what-people-like-us-believe sort of way. Even in the age of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, gay marriage still makes a lot of heterosexuals, including liberal ones, a bit queasy. If the polls are accurate, I guess this is one way in which journalists actually resemble everyday Americans. . . .

"Republicans have been using gay marriage as a political issue for a long time. . . . So why is the politics of gay marriage front and center this time around? My guess: Because it's just so damn obvious . For the White House to bring up this issue again, just before an election, with Republicans struggling to hold on the House and Senate, after barely mentioning it since 2004 -- well, it's almost insulting, isn't it? Journalists don't like being treated like fools, and it seems like an 'enough is enough' factor has seeped into the coverage."

From the right, Captain Ed finds himself in rare agreement with E.J. Dionne that the marriage maneuver is meaningless:

"Obviously, the demands from conservatives and the White House (working at cross purposes) pushed immigration back onto the list, regardless of consensus. If that was the reason why the GOP put off immigration, then tackling gay marriage makes no sense at all, except as a cheap political stunt, as Dionne describes. Not only does a consensus not exist for two-thirds support of this amendment, it doesn't even exist among the GOP caucus. DOMA has not yet been fully tested in the courts, and with the new additions showing more deference to the legislature rather than themselves as policymakers, the prospects for its survival do not look particularly grim.

"So why now? Because the fight on immigration has weakened the White House in the run-up to the midterms. In that sense, I give the White House full marks for courage, just as I did with Social Security reform last year. Bush has stuck to his guns on his vision for immigration reform, even when a good chunk of his party disagrees with him so fundamentally, and he has not dodged the fight at all. In fact, he probably would have been smarter to do immigration reform last year and had this well behind him, and saved Social Security reform for this year. On the whole, he would have done less damage to Republican election prospects.

"This will do nothing to improve his standing among his base. Most of them gave up on any real attempt at marriage 'protection' last year, when the Senate agenda was released. The lack of action over the last eighteen months also spoke volumes about the commitment to this cause from the White House. Some may get excited by the debate, but even for the supporters of such an initiative, this will be seen as an empty political gesture and nothing more."

At Right Wing News, though, John Hawkins says:

"Given Ted Kennedy's latest comments, it seems that the Democrats aren't just for gay marriage, they believe people who have a traditional view of marriage are bigots.

"'A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple,' said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

"So Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, think Americans who simply believe marriage should be between one man and one woman are bigots. See? This is great information for the American people to have and it's something people should think about before they pull the lever for the Democratic Party . . . which explains why the Democrats are acting as if merely having this vote is some sort of dirty trick."

Let's check in on the corruption beat with Washington Monthly guest-blogger Steve Benen :

"In terms of the criminal trial, it's important that David Safavian, the Bush administration's former top procurement official, acknowledged yesterday that he provided 'a lot of insight and advice,' including government information not available to the public, to Jack Abramoff. Since Safavian was arrested last September for doing secret favors for Abramoff, his former employer, it was a key admission.

"But for political purposes, I think this development was even more entertaining.

"Safavian conceded to Justice prosecutor Peter Zeidenberg that he most likely didn't believe he had the qualifications to be chief of staff at the Government Services Administration, the position he held when he had the dealings with Jack Abramoff he is accused of covering up.

" ' Did you think you were qualified for the job ?' Zeidenberg asked.

" ' Probably not, actually ,' Safavian said.

"What a helpful admission. In fact, I can think of dozens of top administration officials who might have similar responses to the same question.

"For example, I'd love to hear the response to the 'Did you think you were qualified for the job?' question from former Small Business Administration head Hector Barreto, a former Republican fundraiser who had no experience or relevant qualifications. Or maybe his replacement, Steven Preston, who has the same problem."

He names more hacks.

The Wall Street Journal ,which writes editorials to influence public debate, doesn't want a certain special prosecutor making use of its prose. The 2003 missive in question said:

" 'One of the mysteries of the recent yellowcake uranium flap is why the White House has been so defensive about an intelligence judgment that we don't yet know is false, and that the British still insist is true. Our puzzlement is even greater now that we've learned what last October's national intelligence estimate really said .'

"Those words appeared in this column on July 17, 2003, under the headline 'Yellowcake Remix.' Three years later they show we were right about Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied in that year's State of Union address about Iraq seeking nuclear materials in Africa.

"So imagine our surprise when Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald declared his intention last month to use that editorial as part of his perjury and obstruction case against former Vice Presidential aide Scooter Libby, who had also questioned Mr. Wilson's claims. It suggests that his case is a lot weaker than his media spin.

"Mr. Libby wasn't a source for our editorial, which quoted from the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate concerning the Africa-uranium issue. But Mr. Fitzgerald alleges in a court filing that Mr. Libby played a role in our getting the information, which in turn shows that 'notwithstanding other pressing government business, [Libby] was heavily focused on shaping media coverage of the controversy concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger.'

"The prosecutor comes close here to suggesting that senior government officials have no right to fight back against critics who make false allegations."

I think the Journal folks should be flattered.

Bill Weld may have played well as Massachusetts governor, but he didn't even make it to the Republican primary in New York, losing to a virtual unknown. Which has got to be good news for Eliot Spitzer.

A telling exchange at the Snow Show with gadfly radio guy Les Kinsolving:

" Kinsolving : The New York Times has just reported, 'This White House, like all White Houses, is obsessed with the press.' My question: Will you admit to this alleged obsession, or is this just one more New York Times exaggeration?

" Snow : It's more a love affair than an obsession, Lester."