Posted on 05/13/2004 4:57:45 AM PDT by metesky
Dan Ratherbiased conceded this point this week.
I've seen newspapers and broadcasters tell readers/viewers to go to the owner's website for more information on a subject.
Dan Ratherbiased said that the network would not be showing the full Nick Berg video. He said that you could find it on the internet (if you felt you had to see it). Since it was not on the CBS site, he basically was conceding that you don't go to CBS for the day's news, go to the new media... the internet.
The reporterette assigned to cover the Boston City Council meeting did due diligence and flagged the claims and photos as bogus.
Right is wrong, and wrong is right, in general, with the editors of the Boston Globe. "It it not the nature of the
evidence, but the seriousness of the charges". Especially if it makes non-Democrat/Communist/Socialists look back.
The editorial board suspended Jeff Jacoby back in 2000 for failing to dot the i's and cross the t's on an internet
humor piece he used in an article. Just so he missed the final run-up to the 2000 election. The editorial board has
a high number of rump rangers. They spike Jacoby's columns on the downside aspects of the gay lifestyle.
Oh, and I believe the Clinton administration promised a MA Republican congresscritter a nice puff-piece by the Globe's
Thomas Oliphant if he voted their way on something. He did and Oliphant delivered.
The Herald went toes up, as did the Traveler.
The American was a morning paper and the Record an evening paper. They had been combined and were about to go belly up when Murdoch rescued the paper and revived the Herald name.
> Cites?
STUPID QUESTION!!
Hehehe, sorry, couldn't resist. No citation, I made it up.
But then, it's probably true. Just remember, "If you're in a tumescent state, you cannot ratiocinate."
You're slighty wrong there. The Congressman was Peter Blute. When approached, he said "No Way" and immediately went to the newspapers and radio (Boston Herald, WRKO, and WBZ) and told them of the offer. It was a big story back then. Anyhow, he voted against their wishes, and was a target of theGlobe (and Oliphant) for the remainder of his career in Congress.
I can't remember.
But wasn't it the Herald that nailed him with the Gidget/Booze Cruise pictures?
Yes. The Herald doesn't pull punches no matter who the Pol is with his hand in the cookie jar. The Globe missed that scoop, but kept it front page from then on.
Ted Kennedy. John Kerry. Boston Globe.
What would you think?
Three words: Lyndon Baines Johnson. What would I think? Take that broad brush and stuff it.
Today you have given the rest of us Kennedy and Kerry. You are the ones who should stuff it!!!
"The ultimate FReep of the Boston Globe would be for people to call up and cancel their subscriptions today."
No, that's not quite the BEST way to go about things.
A better FReep would be to organize FR pet owners to get copies of the Globe and use them to house-train puppies and line bird cages. Only then, after the appropriate use, send the copies to the Globe with a note saying that you find their paper, and it's contents, highly objectionable and ask for a full refund of subscription costs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.