Chinese media reported the story of foreign volunteers helping kids in the diaster zone recover from PTSD through games, which showed that foreigners are not all "devils." (See photos--NOT taken by me) But of course, the New York Times' cover story was titled "Parents' Grief Turns to Rage at Chinese Officials," with a photo of an official kneeling down to beg parents of earthquake victims to stop their protest.

News are always selective in the sense that one paper cannot cover everything happening around the globe. But what standards of selection should be applied? I'm puzzled. "Newsworthy" is as vague as the "healthy and positive" propoganda standard (which is not valid anymore if only one surfs sohu or sina nowadays). Is the "most emailed" story the most newsworthy in the economic sense? Who said "good news is not news?" The improvement of the mainland-Taiwan relationship and the appreciation of Japanese rescue effort were headline news, despite the fact that some of them first appeared in online forums. So who is the executive chef to determine what to cook for the audience today? Should newspapers/press bear certain "social responsibility?" If "incitement" can be a crime, what about "imbalanced negative connotation?" Of course that's teasing. But it is also a reality that no newspaper can expect the audience to uphold their "independent judgment" and diverse resources. Shouldn't a few leading newspapers such as the New York Times be held to a higher standard then? Simply because they are often quoted as the authority?

Also on the cover of NYTimes, was the story of a female "holy warrior for Al Qaeda" who was portrated in the photo with an overall black gown covering all her body except for the eyes.

Not in the news: Tibetans residing in NJ and NYC held a ceremony to pray for earthquake victims on Union Square on Sunday.