BS: So this is what it's come to?

Subject: RE: BS: So this is what it's come to?
From: mrdux
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 12:41 AM

Well, it is the NY Post, and it is a Murdoch newspaper. . . so at least there's nothing surprising about it.

Subject: RE: BS: So this is what it's come to?
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

LMAO...always look at the bright side, doncha, Rapaire?!**bg**

Subject: RE: BS: So this is what it's come to?
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 03:33 PM

Well, it could be better written. And it certainly needs to have the facts checked. And they should use a proofreader and not rely on spellchecks. And the logic could be considerably improved. But it does stand out well against a white background, and the font is nice and crisp.

Subject: RE: BS: So this is what it's come to?
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 12:23 PM

True, but it is usually a paper's policy NOT to sign anyone's name to an editorial which is purported to be the paper's view of things. It is understood it comes from the editor.

It is still a crap piece, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: So this is what it's come to?
From: 282RA
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 11:04 AM

>>Unsigned usually means it comes from the paper's editor/editorial board.<<

It originated from one person. I mean, just sign it because you can't tell me you could collect 5 or 10 people at random who all believe this garbage about the war. If you sat on that board and your boss hands you that editorial and says, "We're running this," I think you'd be all too grateful that your name does not have to go under it and he's certainly not putting his under it.

Subject: RE: BS: So this is what it's come to?
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 10:49 AM

Unsigned usually means it comes from the paper's editor/editorial board. Regardless, it is a piece of tripe, isn't it?

Subject: BS: So this is what it's come to?
From: 282RA
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 10:44 AM

Below is a pro-war editorial. Funny, I found it among the other proffered headlines as though it was something legit and worth reading. It offers the most transparent reasons for staying the course that have long disproven themselves. Must have been written by dickey.

It's as though the writer didn't really believe it but was carrying out an order from on high. It's title "Reid's Bloody Hands" carries the earmark of the Bush administration's smear tactics--accuse the enemy of the very shame you bear even though there is no way your opponent can be guilty of it. Just keep repeating it and the stupid masses eat it right up and beg for more.

But I think that's wearing thin now. If the following are the only outlets willing to continue singing Bush's praises, he's done for. Bad enough it's from the New York Post but then whoever wrote it did not have the conviction in his/her own words to sign it!!

Yeah, shame on you, Senator Reid. You're a BAD MAN!

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007/postopinion/editorials/reids_bloody_hands_editorials_.htm