OK, the following comments about the major U.S. news media are not substantive and not useful at all. Why write them? Mostly because Monday and Tuesday were stressful, and I’m feeling very cranky this morning. Criticizing others makes me feel better about myself - there, I said it.

1. New York Times - On the day after the National People’s Congress meeting began, in other words, the first day of coverage from the U.S. media, what did I find on the front page of the “Asia-Pacific” section of the NY Times?

Top story was “Beijing Accelerates Its Military Spending“. This story has been in the press for quite a few days already, particularly after VP Cheney made some choice comments on the issue in public. An announcement was made at the NPC regarding military budgeting, and the US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, a man who was now had every single U.S. government job possible, was here in Beijing to comment. Amidst all the important NPC stories, this is the one that received the most attention from the NY Times - I wonder why? See below . . .

Next to the military spending story, and with a smaller photo, was this important piece of hard news: “The People’s Republic of Sex Kittens and Metrosexuals“. Hmm. On top of the headline, in all caps, was the line “Naughty Little Red Book”. OK, whatever you can say about the military spending story regarding importance, it is at least newsworthy. I would argue whether it belonged on top, but at least it was timely and relevant. The sex story? On the day the NPC opened and a lot of interesting policy was being discussed? Hello????

Below the story about sexual taboos, there was something on the stock market, with the story being somewhat less sensational than the headline, “Shanghai What-If: How a Shock Can Become a Shock Wave”. Again, I question the placement, but not the relevance.

You had to go down the page a bit to get to any substantive coverage of the NPC, with a story about Wen Jiabao’s speech.

2. Washington Post - first story in this publication is also on the military spending story, with the same slant, “China Boosts Military Spending” (the subtitle was this ominous rhetorical flourish: “Senior U.S. Official Presses Beijing to Clarify ‘Plans and Intentions’” - I’m scared). Now, maybe I’m just being cranky here, but it seems as though these papers led with this story because John Negroponte gave a speech and they were undoubtedly given briefing materials. The article writes itself, no? Harder to figure out what the NPC is all about and what is the significance of different policy initiatives. By the way, that was on the “World News” page, which contained no other stories on China, even in the “Asia/Pacific” subsection, although they did have time to deal with Japanese brothels in WWII. Slow news day?

All right, I have sucked down my coffee and woken up, so I’m slightly less cranky now and ready to let this drop. Conclusions before I go:

1. The Times and Post are not representative of all U.S. media outlets, but they do play a prominent role and lead many others.

2. Washington is clearly more interested in military spending than anything else Beijing is doing. I would say this is bad policy and very bad politics, but others may disagree.

3. The Times and Post, at least with this day’s coverage, were following the cues from the White House and could have made better choices on China stories.