Andrew Sullivan's gratuitous criticism of La Shawn Barber intrigues me. Here's Sullivan:

Instapundit's coverage suggests that he believes that the erroneously-sourced Newsweek story is actually more offensive and important than what happened at Abu Ghraib. A more direct expression of an even more hardline position is given by LaShawn Barber:

Let me clear up one thing. Whether Americans flushed the Koran down the toilet is irrelevant. Newsweek should not have reported it, even if true.

Now there's a new standard.

As La Shawn put it:

They make judgments all the time, for various reasons, about what is and isn’t newsworthy. In a 700-word story, for example, they can’t include every single fact associated with every single event. They decide what’s important and true, what’s unduly inflammatory, etc., with every story they write.

Is this a call for censorship? No. Read the First Amendment. (Congress shall pass no law.....) I'd die to stop the government from passing laws telling news media or citizens what they can and cannot print. But discretion in reporting? All reporters use discretion all the time. There is no such thing as reporting all news. And, inasmuch as there is such a thing as discretion, what the hell is wrong with criticizing the news media for misusing or abusing their discretion? It might take the form it did with La Shawn's comment (that it would be better not to report certain things) or it might take the opposite form (that some things should be reported). A private citizen advocating more reporting of one thing or less reporting of another is not censorship.

Nor is it a "new standard."

Those who slam La Shawn Barber for slamming Newsweek are saying that she shouldn't have said what she said. Lots of people attack Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs for reporting what he reports, and they say he shouldn't report certain things because they're inflammatory. Is there any logical difference between that and attacking Newsweek for what it reports? Some would argue that Newsweek has a higher "duty" than bloggers, but does it? Why? Under the First Amendment, we are all equal, and we are all equally subject to criticism, both for what we discuss, and what we do not discuss. Such criticism is of course not legally enforceable, and as Andrew Sullivan showed, it can generate more criticism, and in turn that criticism can then generate its own criticism.

Speaking of pit bulls and censorship, from time to time I report on the growth and development of Coco, who I'm attempting to groom as at least a co-blogger (perhaps even my replacement). When she demonstrated her ferocious opposition to document shredding and coverups, I dutifully reported that. When she fisked the Philadelphia Inquirer, that too went into my blog.

Seasoned blogospherians have probably heard all about a phenomenon called tireblogging which was all the rage not so long ago. Well, Coco's only a six month old puppy, and she's just not up to speed on everything. (When tireblogging was in vogue, I don't even think Coco had been weaned.) This made me feel a little guilty yesterday, because I was in such a hurry to replace a couple of tires that when I went to the tire store I forgot to bring either a camera or my laptop.

I hope readers will forgive the fact that I didn't post (as I have before) about getting the tires replaced, OK? No tireblogging yesterday. Once again, I was guilty of self censorship.

But I did think to bring home one of the bad tires. You know, as a sort of leftover, like bringing food home in a doggie bag.

As this video shows, Coco was thrilled! (To play the video, click on the arrow below or try the link.)

[NOTE: If there's too long a delay, clicking a second time seems to start the damned thing for me.]

Not only is Coco delighted to learn about tireblogging, but unless I am wrong, this is not a retread of an old idea, but a new first for the blogosphere:

pit bull tire-videoblogging!

No discretionary censorship on this one.

But Coco is a very active, very inquisitive, highly judgmental animal, and I cannot promise that everything she does will be discussed here, much less videoblogged.

For example, I have some books lying about. Some of them I don't read much, and some of them I've never read at all because they're boring translations of things that don't make much sense to me but which I bought in the fall of 2001.

And Coco has a penchant for grabbing doggone things like books. And chewing them when I'm not around.

(Heaven forbid that she ever read about being unclean.)

Obviously, I have to censor certain things. I wouldn't want Coco to flush with pride.