And by far the biggest story yesterday.  The most important US newspapers made it their lead story.  The New York Times, no friend to the Bush administration, began with this:

Iraqi leaders on Saturday approved a full-term government here for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein more than three years ago, but one that appeared to lack the cohesion needed to quell the sectarian and guerrilla violence engulfing the country.

Members of Iraq's Parliament voted on Saturday to approve cabinet members for the new government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

The Iraqi Parliament approved 36 ministers who will form a cabinet led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a member of the dominant Shiite coalition that captured a majority of the votes cast in nationwide elections on Dec. 15.  But three of the most important posts in the government — the Ministries of Defense, Interior and National Security — were left vacant because Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders could not agree on who should fill them.

But also included this:

For all the messiness of Saturday's ceremony, the formation of the government represented a triumph of democratic politics.  Sunni leaders had refused to take part in two previous American-backed governments, and many Sunnis boycotted the first round of elections in January 2005.

Yes, that's right; the New York Times said it was a "triumph of democratic politics".  (Which are nearly always messy, as the New York Times should know.)

And how did the Seattle Times treat this story yesterday?  They buried it on page A15.   The lead story on the front page was "Air travel this summer could be a real bummer".  There were two other stories on the front page, "Will Matcha chocolate tea sell in the land of lattes?" and "An air of uncertainty in town where Latino roots run deep".  Note that the first story hasn't even happened yet, and that it puts a negative spin on a generally positive story; the economy has been growing solidly for years, and now the travel industry is beginning to profit from that growth.   The second story is trivial.  The third story is not bad, though it lacks balance, but it is not front page news.

In the past few months, I have received a number of phone calls from the Seattle Times, asking me to to subscribe.  It is this kind of decision, to bury the positive story on the new Iraqi government, that makes me tell them no.  It is not just the obvious bias; it is the silliness of their decisions; I would be embarrassed to subscribe to a newspaper that believes that a story on Matcha chocolate tea is more important than a story on the new Iraqi government.

It is sad that the Seattle Times buried this "triumph of democratic politics" instead of celebrating it — as every decent person should.  It is also bad for their business, as I and many other ex-subscribers keep trying to tell them.