To: pabianice
6 posted on
04/08/2003 8:29:19 AM PDT by
ArcLight
To: ArcLight
It was an excellent piece of war journalism, realistic and nuanced. The Post's problem was that the copy editor didn't read it all the way through before writing the headline. It is too bad, because a lot of people I'm sure looked at headline, rolled their eyes (a non-PC response) and moved on. Lame headline writing is a disservice to the readers as well as the good writers.
10 posted on
04/08/2003 8:39:10 AM PDT by
3AngelaD
To: ArcLight
Thanks for pointing that out. I wouldn't have clicked on it otherwise.
You're right, it was a very well-written and interesting piece. God bless those boys over there.
14 posted on
04/08/2003 8:49:33 AM PDT by
dead
To: ArcLight
That first Washington Post story you cite is marvelous, a first-rate piece of journalism. Everybody here should read it. That is a great read. Very intense, you-are-there type stuff ... kudos to that writer.
21 posted on
04/08/2003 9:14:58 AM PDT by
spodefly
(This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
To: ArcLight
You are right. A great piece of writing. It is a shame that the piss-poor headline probably turned off a bunch of readers. On the other hand, it probably sucked in a bunch of anti-Americans that went away mad as hell!
28 posted on
04/08/2003 10:10:00 AM PDT by
Redleg Duke
(Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson