Posted on 06/30/2006 10:53:12 AM PDT by mathprof
I am pretty much where you are at. I cannot give them any praise considering the timing. I am still a little skeptical of their explanation. Peggy Noonan wrote an opinion piece in the journal yesterday in which she criticized the NYT and said she disagreed with the decision to publish by the WSJ and in which there was none of the explanation that was provided today. I loved the opinion page in the old days under Bartley when he was ripping Clinton on Whitewater and the Vince Foster "suicide". But to anyone who wants to differentiate between one MSM elite in the NYT and WSJ, I say there is not much difference, and in support of such an assertion, I respond with the following, Do the name Mr Judy Woodruff, aka Al Hunt ring a bell?
Yes, I did.
The fact that anyone published it, with or without error, is inexcusable, in my opinion.
Wow, functionally illiterate...would you care to share your qualifications for that judgment?
Well done!
OMIGOSH!
THAT is MOST EXCELLENT!
Reckless cowboy BUMP!
Thanks a lot for the NYT's "keepsake edition." LOL.
Where reason goes to die
The brotherhood of journos -- right or wrong -- is a pretty tight bond -- a bond that does the public no service, though. So, yes, the WSJ must have gotten an avalanche of complaints/cancellations in order for it to publish such a vociferous condemnation of the NYT.
I believe the WSJ's explanation (this and other admins have often used the WSJ to counter, or bury, bad news, since it really is not on the cutting edge of straight news), but this line disturbs me:
"Would the Journal have published the story had we discovered it as the Times did, and had the Administration asked us not to? Speaking for the editorial columns, our answer is probably not."
"Probably not" isn't exactly reassuring, and this opinion comes from the "editorial" staff, which the piece makes perfectly plain, has no control over the Journal's news department.
I cancelled my WSJ subscription some time ago due to a local "news" story that I personally knew to be a crock, and the fact that I generally agree with the paper's editorial opinions wasn't enough to keep supporting the news staff's misrepresentation of facts.
It was an observation, not a judgement and as for "qualification?" How about a well developed sense of the ridiculous? <];^)~<
Most adults understand the difference...
Sulzberger's homosexual rage has made him unbalanced. Pinch's gay lifestyle is a key reason why he has decided to play the role of flamboyant traitor and ally to Bin Laden and Zarqawi.
Try working on your sanctimonious ignorance and boorishness.
It made sense because one is used to interpreting and/or decifering what the functionally illiterate believe themselves to be saying. With its mishmashed tenses, syntax and grammar it was evidence of its author's funcntional illiteracy.
But not of his insufferable self-righteousness, boorishness and ignorance.
And lack of sense of humor.
Cordially - Brian
Humor? What would I find humorous about your offering?
<< Humor? .... >>
Oh well, four out of five will have to do, then.
Given your implicit comfort with funcntional illiteracy, insufferable self-righteousness, boorishness and ignorance, I'm not surprised you found nothing funny in my post.
Guess you're more used to being laughed AT?
Cordially - Brian
John Whorewood of the WSJ was on Meet the Press today and he rejected the WSJ Editorial in no uncertain terms. He said the news and editorial departments are very far apart.
Anyone who's competent to diagnose wouldn't attempt to do so at a distance. FR doesn't have a budget to pay grammar cops, and anyone willing to do so for free is disqualified by definition.
Turn that blinding intellect inward, and you'll be amazed how long your to-do list will be.
Oh, and have a nice life.
"...the Times has responded by wrapping itself in the First Amendment..."
I know what I'd like to "wrap" them in...
You are an [(Anonymous) …. creature?] ... [At least you appear to feel so --and to so verbalize]. Not only [Do your actions imply your fantasized competence to “distance diagnose” -- but you are arbitrarily and gratuitously acting] as [FR's "Brian Policeman."]
Anyone …. competent to diagnose [Would not do so at your distance from reality]. FR [Has no] budget to pay ["Brian Police"] -- and any individual who is willing, [Without compensation] to [Pretend to such a role] is, [On the evidence, thus self-provided, of his delusional state, self-disqualified].
[Cease your pathological projections,] turn [Your rather less-than-blinding “intellect”] inward -- and you will be amazed how long your “To-Do” list will be – [And how far beyond your level of competence to achieve].
Oh -- and continue to take such pleasure as is to be taken from your continued employment of such of PoMo Babbling’s mindless and meaningless clichés as: “Have a nice life.” [And please do whatever you feel that phrase to mean]
Cordially – Brian
PS: -- Were you, perchance, "Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French" before you found yourself being compelled to be FR's "Brian Policeman?" ;)
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.