Posted on 09/05/2008 2:47:06 PM PDT by goldstategop
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I think they’re a-feelin’ it...
Do they actually mean that she is supposed to read their article and then AGAIN write to them to cancel her subscription? What audacity (OK, OK, I can use that word too). Are they going to ignore her letter which is telling them that she is canelling her subscription? Does she have to do it twice?????
Keep hammering away,everyone!!!
What about those of us who have never had a subscription? Should I write and tell them that I will never glance at their cover if I see it at the checkout?
PATHETIC!!
They say the lies are about Sarah Palin, but then talk about the “troopergate” nonsense, while completely ignoring the facts of the case, i.e. that the trooper threatened to kill the Governor’s father, had tasered his 10 year old stepson, was caught drinking on the job, etc.
It was a hit piece, from start to finish.
Yeah, US Weekly is always looking for compelling stories regardless of the controversy they may create. That’s why there was a photo of Obama next to a photo of a raging Jeremiah Wright the week that controversy arose, with the cover title: “BARACK OBAMA: ANTI-AMERICANISM, BIGOTRY, AND LIES”.
Oh, what’s that? US Weekly decided to run a fluff piece on how much Barack & Michelle love their kids instead? Never mind!
Typical generic canned e-mail response. The woman should have called their toll-free number and complained instead of writing an email.
Wenner Media Websites:
Us Weekly
Rolling Stone
Men's Journal
How about a little civil disobedience. Everytime you see US Weekly on a magazine rack or by the checkout, just quietly pick them up and hide them behind other magazines or turn them back out or put them on the floor underneath the rack.
The editors chose negative bait for Palin and positive bait for Obama. They know most who see the covers aren’t buying the magazines, but what an outlet for politicking via visual image seen by anyone who needs a loaf of bread.
I sent emails to all their major advertisers. I’m 40 years old and it was the first time I’ve ever come close to being an “activist.” And MAN! Did it feel GOOD!
Agreed. Michelle must not have a world understanding of business like she does in politics. There is no begging here - typical generic response.
Or another one would be to take out the annoying subscription cards that are in the magazine and tape the postage paid card to an envelope stuffed with enough cardboard to cost them about a buck.
Does she have to do it twice?????
Pretty blatant refusal to honor their former subscriber's wishes.
That email response is comical. I edited a couple of small magazines years ago, and the overriding rule for any magazine cover is good visual impact. That means the reader must get the message the cover is sending in *less than a second*.
IOW, the editors couldn’t care less about the article; though if they get you to read it it’s a twofer. The subconscious message is well thought out and clear. The cover sends a subliminal message that “Sara Palin’s not only a little crazy (”’shopped” eyes), but she’s got nothing but problems, problems, problems.
Of course, the rhetorical question being asked here is, “Do you really think this woman should be allowed to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?”
Pure agitprop.
There is on way I would buy US magazine. They have shown what scum they are.
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.