1 posted on
02/11/2005 4:44:15 AM PST by
pookie18
To: pookie18
Meanwhile, in related news, Jeff Gannon is driven out of the WH press corpse (sic) for not joining the pack in asking exclusively tendentious, hostile, "gotcha" questions at news conferences.
Dan
2 posted on
02/11/2005 4:47:36 AM PST by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: pookie18
The LATimes offered to sell him the newspaper without the news and opinion sections, Laer said. He was thunderstruck.How does that solve the problem of opinion masquerading as news in the rest of that rag?
3 posted on
02/11/2005 4:49:40 AM PST by
mewzilla
(Has CBS retracted the story yet?)
To: pookie18
"The LATimes offered to sell him the newspaper without the news and opinion sections"
Lol. That's funny. And pathetic
4 posted on
02/11/2005 4:55:53 AM PST by
nuconvert
(No More Axis of Evil by Christmas ! TLR)
To: pookie18
Taking out the news section is not the answer. Taking out the people who write and edit the news is the answer. Fire them, now. Then call every subscriber who cancelled because of the blatant bias, and ask them for suggestions on how to clean up their act.
I wouldn't subscribe to a news-free version of the newspaper, even if it was free, even if I had three 6-week-old puppies. The classified ads, comics, coupons and horoscope are the money makers that pay the salaries of the idiots who write that leftist propaganda. Fire them all.
5 posted on
02/11/2005 4:56:58 AM PST by
giotto
To: pookie18
The LATimes offered to sell him the newspaper without the news and opinion sections...I can see leaving out the "opinion" section...but if you leave out the "news" sections of a "newspaper", what is left? Ads and classifieds???
6 posted on
02/11/2005 5:17:22 AM PST by
Onelifetogive
(* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
To: pookie18
Jack Kelly Is this the same guy who was forced to resign from USA Today after he was caught playing the Jayson Blair game?
11 posted on
02/11/2005 5:51:26 AM PST by
Alouette
(Learned Mother of Zion)
To: pookie18
"...Since the primary reason given for the cancellations was the Inquirer's 21 straight days of editorials praising John Kerry and attacking President Bush, it's doubtful those who wrote the editorials will be effective salespeople...
17 posted on
02/11/2005 7:27:21 AM PST by
vannrox
(The Preamble to the Bill of Rights - without it, our Bill of Rights is meaningless!)
To: pookie18
Whenever my paper calls to try and get me to re-subscribe, I simply tell them that for years their editorial board has advocated candidates and positions that would raise my taxes. Not subscribing is my way of giving them the same medicine that they advocate for me. If I'm feeling particularly cross that day, I will add that my goal is to put them out of business.
They call regularly every month or two, so I guess they like the pain.
19 posted on
02/11/2005 9:05:19 AM PST by
Owl558
(Please excuse my poor spelling)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson