hey xfer or anyone for that matter
- Thread starter goatschool
- Start date
lizard
Member
that's great.
and watching Bush trying to garb himself in Reaganish robes and having the Reagan family take shots at him is delish.
and watching Bush trying to garb himself in Reaganish robes and having the Reagan family take shots at him is delish.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
I think it's awesome!
Yesterday, I sent that story to a group of my conservative friends with the comment:
"If God himself came down from Heaven with a pair of tablets upon which was engraved 'BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY FUCKING SUCKS', you would still call it 'brilliant'."
The sad truth is that Bush is even a bad conservative. His only real supporters at this point are knee-jerk Republicans who would support a GOP child molestor over a Democrat. And the people they have successfully fooled.
Yesterday, I sent that story to a group of my conservative friends with the comment:
"If God himself came down from Heaven with a pair of tablets upon which was engraved 'BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY FUCKING SUCKS', you would still call it 'brilliant'."
The sad truth is that Bush is even a bad conservative. His only real supporters at this point are knee-jerk Republicans who would support a GOP child molestor over a Democrat. And the people they have successfully fooled.
lizard
Member
man I can't find something I read this morning but apparently Time has revealed the location of Dick Cheney's secure undisclosed secret bunker. A white house official remarked, "These guys would reveal the location of Anne Frank if they got the opportunity."
lizard
Member
Ron Reagan Jr.: "...my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush." Also, at the 2000 GOP convention: "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... what's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?" These and more observations by Ron Jr. from an April 2003 interview recently reposted by Salon
what i would like to know is, how big does a hoopla have to get in order for it to make the front page of cnn.com?
i think that sounds either naive or jokey but for real. after all of this time (alive), i still can't figure out what rattles the system and/or urges major media to break poker face and comment on dissension.
i've seen it happen. but i don't understand the catalysts. unless personal policies of individual editors swing wildly from shift to shift
i think that sounds either naive or jokey but for real. after all of this time (alive), i still can't figure out what rattles the system and/or urges major media to break poker face and comment on dissension.
i've seen it happen. but i don't understand the catalysts. unless personal policies of individual editors swing wildly from shift to shift
avi
W3RK3R
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
This should make the front page later today, I think.
I think about that a lot, too, Nick. I don't think it's as easy as saying "This is a center-right news source" or "This paper is owned by Time Warner" or something like that, either...I think that the people who make the decisions look at the fabric of reportage in general, incorporating other people, and see where everyone else is putting the story, and then decide if they want to deviate from the norm a bit on the "more" or "less" publicization axis. And I think they incorporate "buzz" to determine what people want to read, which includes what people are talking about on the internet! (blogs, messageboards, chat rooms, etc) I think a lot of the determinant of a successful news editor person is how well they can read the public and other media sources in their decision where to put stuff.
So, yeah, I think it's important to discuss politics with your friends, and online, and calling in to radio shows--because if a lot of people are talking about (X), it's less likely to get buried!
I think about that a lot, too, Nick. I don't think it's as easy as saying "This is a center-right news source" or "This paper is owned by Time Warner" or something like that, either...I think that the people who make the decisions look at the fabric of reportage in general, incorporating other people, and see where everyone else is putting the story, and then decide if they want to deviate from the norm a bit on the "more" or "less" publicization axis. And I think they incorporate "buzz" to determine what people want to read, which includes what people are talking about on the internet! (blogs, messageboards, chat rooms, etc) I think a lot of the determinant of a successful news editor person is how well they can read the public and other media sources in their decision where to put stuff.
So, yeah, I think it's important to discuss politics with your friends, and online, and calling in to radio shows--because if a lot of people are talking about (X), it's less likely to get buried!
if it does make the paper today, it's going to be a little one-two punch coupled w/ the morning headlines.
i can see all of your points. i have to think about them a little more. i don't doubt that the big orgs have a branch of people sitting around monitoring blogs.
i can see all of your points. i have to think about them a little more. i don't doubt that the big orgs have a branch of people sitting around monitoring blogs.
avi
W3RK3R
having worked in a (small) newsroom, I can confirm that most of what Alex says is true. for the most part, they try to publish what people want to read/see, not necessarily what the 'most important' story is. that's not what sells papers, as they say.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
check this out.
headline last night:
CHENEY RE-ASSERTS AL-QAEDA/IRAQ CONNECTION
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4205170,00.html
this morning on CNN.com:
9/11 COMMISSION FINDS NO IRAQ, AL-QAEDA CONNECTION
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html
later today:
BUSH FOREIGN POLICY UTTER FAILURE; REPUBLICAN-HEAVY PANEL RECOMMENDS OUSTER OF ADMINISTRATION IN NOVEMBER
!!!!!
headline last night:
CHENEY RE-ASSERTS AL-QAEDA/IRAQ CONNECTION
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4205170,00.html
this morning on CNN.com:
9/11 COMMISSION FINDS NO IRAQ, AL-QAEDA CONNECTION
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/index.html
later today:
BUSH FOREIGN POLICY UTTER FAILURE; REPUBLICAN-HEAVY PANEL RECOMMENDS OUSTER OF ADMINISTRATION IN NOVEMBER
!!!!!
here's a good one:
fox news site
look at the headline, then check out the second item in the 'latest headline' scroll box to the right of it
fox news site
look at the headline, then check out the second item in the 'latest headline' scroll box to the right of it
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
I don't think this is what you intended me to get out of it, but what the fuck kind of headline is that? Paving over the 9-11 commission report in favor of a huge picture of Bush rallying the troops?!
I guess I ought to visit Fox News more.
I guess I ought to visit Fox News more.
yeah i dunno why i worded it like that.
anyhow this is typical fox. they love gradients around there.
anyhow this is typical fox. they love gradients around there.
local news site: (paper owned by hearst):
"9/11 panel says Iraq rebuffed bin Laden"
no one north of poughkeepsie can interpret "rebuffed" as anything other than a gentleman's club byline
"9/11 panel says Iraq rebuffed bin Laden"
no one north of poughkeepsie can interpret "rebuffed" as anything other than a gentleman's club byline
so at this point, no WMD and no 9/11 connection.
at this point i forget: what's the official reasoning?
at this point i forget: what's the official reasoning?
Similar threads
