Overshadowed

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was treated to both heckles and cheers yesterday by liberal activists in a mixed day for the New York Democrat on the campaign trail," says the Washington Times . "Yesterday morning, Mrs. Clinton spoke at the 'Take Back America' conference, held at the Washington Hilton. Protesters upset with Mrs. Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war in 2002 stood outside the hotel with a sign that read, 'It takes one bomb to raze a village.' "

Is Iraq starting to get less media attention (other than yesterday and on the day of Zarqawi's death, obviously)? The Chicago Trib's Tim McNulty runs the numbers:

"In the first five months of this year, Tribune editors placed Iraq on the front page on average every third or fourth day--there were 41 Iraq stories in 151 days. In the same period last year, there were 74 Iraq articles on Page 1. There were 138 stories in 2004.

"How does that compare to other newspapers? . . . The Washington Post led all U.S. newspapers with 132 front-page articles on Iraq in the first five months of this year. The war is not only a national story for the Post, it is a local story with the White House, State Department and Pentagon in its back yard. Still, this year's number was down from the 161 articles on the front page in the same period of 2005. The Post ran twice as many stories in early 2004 as it has in 2006.

"At the other end of the spectrum of front-page coverage, USA Today, the nation's largest circulation newspaper, had 21 Page 1 articles on Iraq in the first five months of this year, 22 the year before and 42 the year before that. "For those who want to keep track, here are other statistics. The New York Times 113 (2006), 143 (2005) and 216 (2004). The Los Angeles Times, 127, 155 and 238. Looking at a smaller paper, The Boston Globe's count was 32, 65 and 143."

An unfair comparison, says USA Today's Baghdad correspondent , Cesar Soriano, in a letter to Romenesko:

"Comparing USA Today's Page 1 coverage of Iraq with 'traditional' newspapers is like comparing apples and oranges. The very nature of USA Today's design and layout limits us to running about three front page articles per day, versus about six 1A stories in other newspapers. Those other papers also have larger staff in Iraq. To somehow suggest that USA Today or other media care less about Iraq coverage based on a byline count is wrong and an insult to the brave U.S. and Iraqi journalists and staff who risk their lives everyday to bring the news to our readers.

"For the record, USA Today has maintained a Baghdad bureau since beginning of the war, currently headed by Rick Jervis. A quick search of our archives reveals USA Today has published a total of 433 articles in 2006 that mention Iraq in the headline or lede."

And this parting shot: "To all the Chairborne Rangers advancing the vast 'negative media' conspiracy from the safety and comfort of their parents' basements: If you think you can do better, I've got a spare bed in the Baghdad bureau."

I know everyone had this story, but it just reads better in the New York Post , under the Category 5 headline "HURRI-CON":

"In a shocking rip-off of taxpayers, federal hurricane relief bought 'Girls Gone Wild' videos, Caribbean vacations and French champagne, as thousands of brazen scam artists bilked the government out of $1.4 billion, a bombshell report reveals."