The Washington Post's story about yesterday's protests is sympathetic to a fault. It uses phrasings like "a vast wave of protest" and "the breadth of popular opposition to U.S. policies" and "an extraordinary display of global coordination." You don't get anything remotely critical until halfway down, when there are a couple paragraphs from Tony Blair, and near the end a comment about a small counter-demonstration. The second half has a bunch of stuff that's indirectly critical -- coverage of protests by folks like Saddam-supporting Iraqis that most doves wouldn't like to be linked to. But most people don't read that far. It makes me wonder how much flak the Post has gotten from people claiming the media is pro-war, and whether they're overcompensating.