I am going to change the format of the Yesterday’s News posts. Rather than hitting every item in one long post, I am going to have individual posts for each major story, then a clean-up post if necessary for things that are worth mentioning but don’t warrant an individual post. Please let me know whether you like this format or prefer the previous one.

The major front-page story remains the Romney video I mentioned yesterday, the one in which he basically throws 47 percent of the U.S. population under the bus. As it turns out, he also calls Mideast peace impossible, among other comments, but let’s stay with the comment about the 47 percent, as that was the focus of most of today’s articles. The Financial Times (FT) had “Romney gaffe draws fire from all sides” on the front page, quoting several Republicans denouncing the comments, as well as “Romney video stirs media debate” on page 2; the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) front page had “Video Flap Jolts Campaign,” which talks about the Romney campaign’s attempt to turn the flap into a debate on the role of government; and the front page of the New York Times (NYT) had “Romney Stands Behind Message Caught on Video,” which is pretty self-explanatory.

Apart from China, which gets its own post today, the U.S. election led the headlines. The New York Times (NYT) started with “In Video Clip, Romney Calls 47% ‘Dependent’ and Feeling Entitled” on the front page, the Financial Times (FT) had “Romney refocuses amid poll gloom” on the front page and “Romney’s chances hit by mixed messages” farther back, and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had “Romney Video Surfaces Just as Campaign Vows Specifics” on page A4. For anyone who missed this, there is a video that shows Romney saying he will not even try for the votes of the 47% of the population who are dependent on government, as they would never vote for him. Romney acknowledged making the comments, which were, of course, seized on by the Democrats.

The tone of class conflict in the comments, though, is at odds with the general disappearance of Occupy Wall Street. The FT had a picture on the front page, “Keeping occupied: March marks movement’s anniversary,” and the NYT had “Occupy Wall Street: A Frenzy That Fizzled” on page B1. The WSJ, interestingly, had nothing. Think about it—when was the last time you thought about Occupy Wall Street? Romney’s comments, though much more blatant than others he has made, are also consistent with public remarks he has made, to no criticism. Bad politics, perhaps, but incorrect?

Looking at the papers today, I decided to do two posts instead of one. I try to keep my posts to a reasonable length, and with everything that is going on in China, it warranted its own discussion. I’ll cover the rest of the world in a second post.

Throughout history, China has considered itself to be at the center of the world, and, because of that, the country has been known as the Middle Kingdom. In recent centuries, of course, the West has believed that it is the center. Look at any map made in the U.S., for example—we are in the middle! If you look at the news, though, it does all seem to revolve around China nowadays. Perhaps we will have to redo our maps.

Looking at the news over the weekend and today, there is no overarching theme, just continuations of earlier stories.

No prizes for guessing what the lead story is today—the launch of the good ship QE3. Front pages for all: “Fed Links New Aid to Jobs Recovery in Forceful Move” in the New York Times (NYT), “Fed Acts to Fix Jobs Market” in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), and “Bernanke takes plunge with QE3” in the Financial Times (FT).

This is a big story. Although more QE (i.e., quantitative easing) is not necessarily a big deal, the way it’s being done shows that the Fed is all in: the open-ended nature of the program, the specific commitments, and the fact that it will go in conjunction with the existing Operation Twist. This is well in excess of what the Fed had to do, and well in excess of what many—mostly Republicans—thought it should do. The FT described the move as “stunningly bold” in a sidebar on the front page. This is a political bet, made necessary by the Fed’s conviction that—in the face of fiscal and political uncertainty in the U.S.—the economy would continue to be very weak and unemployment unacceptably high, if nothing more were done.

Unfortunately, the headline story today on front pages everywhere was the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three of his team in Libya. The Financial Times (FT) led with “Marines sent to Libya after envoy is killed in mob attack on US consulate,” the New York Times (NYT) had “Attack on US Site In Libya Kills Envoy; A Flash Point for Obama and Romney,” and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had “Libya Attack Sparks Crisis.” My thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims—there is not a lot else to say.

Economics got pushed to the back pages. The decision by the German court to approve Germany’s participation in the European rescue fund was on page 3 of the FT, with “Constitutional court refuse to block creation of rescue fund.” Meanwhile “In Victory for Merkel, German Court Ruling Favors European Bailout Fund” appeared on page 6 of the NYT, and “German Court Clears Rescue Fund” appeared on page 10 of the WSJ. This is a major victory for the euro, as not only was the rescue fund approved, but the language used made it more difficult for future challenges to be filed, and the conditions imposed were less than had been feared.

The common front-page story yesterday was, of course, the anniversary of 9/11. The Financial Times (FT) led with “9/11 remembered – Thousands gather at NY memorial,” the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) with “Where Towers Stood, Memories Cast a Long Shadow,” and the New York Times (NYT) with “Indelible Date, Unforgettable Lives.” It is fitting that this terrible event continues to get this level of coverage. Never forget.

No other real common front-pagers, but a couple of stories snagged two of three. The big one was the $104 million payout for the whistle-blower who led the IRS to systematic evidence that UBS had enabled thousands of Americans to evade taxes. He needs the money, as he just got out of jail on similar charges, but this will certainly aid his re-entry into society. “‘Tarantula’ snares record $104m reward for whistleblowing in UBS tax case” hit the front page of the FT, and “Get Out of Jail Free? No, It’s Better” landed on the front page of the NYT, but “Whistleblower Gets $104 million” was relegated to page C1 of the WSJ. Think this will encourage others to run to the IRS with evidence of tax evasion? Incentives work, although the jail sentence will probably mitigate any effect.

One story consistently made the front pages this morning: where is China’s presumptive new leader? “Mystery as China’s leader-in-waiting vanishes” in the Financial Times (FT), “Communist Leader’s Absence Sets Off Rumor Mills in China” in the New York Times (NYT), and “China Mystery: Where is Xi Jinping” in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) all report the same speculation, but no one has any facts. Imagine, not all that long before inauguration, the vanishing of a U.S. president-elect. Problems? Quite possibly.

As well as China has done economically, it is clear that the political system does not operate at the same level of sophistication. Most predictions of continued Chinese economic success hinge on the ability of the government to manage the economy; to my mind, this type of story calls that ability into serious question. The FT has a good overview article, “The Ascent of the Bureaucrat” (p. 7), which discusses some of the issues associated with the current system. Given those issues, the downfall of Bo Xilai and his wife, and the current absence of Xi Jinping, you have to wonder what is happening at the top levels of Chinese politics and what that will mean for the economy, not to mention for the people.

The U.S. jobs figures and their effect on the presidential race were a flash in the pan. Although they made it to the front pages over the weekend, with “Poor jobs data hit Obama campaign” in the Financial Times (FT) and “Jobs Data Weigh on Obama, Fed” in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), they got bumped into nonexistence on Monday.

The big stories on Monday are the pending threats to the eurozone, the German Constitutional Court decision and Dutch elections on September 12, and the slowdown in China.

Two big stories today. The Democratic National Convention (DNC) made the front page of the New York Times (NYT) and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), but not the Financial Times (FT), and the European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) bond-buying plan made all three.

The DNC coverage is fairly vanilla, with “Obama Presses Plan for US Resurgence” in the WSJ and “Obama Makes Case for Second Term” in the NYT. More interesting is the accompanying analysis. “Campaign Confident It Has Roads to Re-election,” on the front page of the WSJ, discusses the race from an Electoral College perspective, pointing out that there is a structural advantage for the Democrats and breaking down the swing states—pretty good article. The WSJ has another note-worthy analysis piece, “Jobs Gauge Carries Election Clout” (p. A2), that talks about the importance of today’s employment figures to the election; we will discuss jobs a bit later in this post. The FT did touch on the U.S. election indirectly with a front-page article, “Draghi helps out Obama campaign,” pointing out that a European financial collapse would definitely have a negative drag on his chances for reelection.