Skip to comments.150 years later, Pennsylvania newspaper apologizes for panning Gettysburg Address
Posted on 11/14/2013 3:19:58 PM PST by EveningStar
It took 150 years, but a Pennsylvania newspaper said Thursday it should have recognized the greatness of President Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg Address at the time it was delivered.
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, about 35 miles northeast of Gettysburg, retracted a dismissive editorial penned by its Civil War-era predecessor, The Harrisburg Patriot & Union.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In another 150 years they might apologize for being biased to the left.
What; Are they and the WaPo deflecting from the obvious necessary headline ‘Paper Finally Apologizes for Panning Conservative, Limbaugh, Levin and Senators Cruz and Lee Over Obama Horrors’?
“Free Republic, a 170 year old internet forum, apologizes for panning Obama’s healthcare reforms.”
I’m not much of a fan of lincoln or the Civil War era republican/railroad fascists he represented. I wish I could say “the South shall rise again”, but I know I can say “the North shall crumble in upon its corruption.” And lo, it is.
It’s an AP article. The WaPo merely picked it up, as did several other media outlets.
The paper probably lauded the prolix speeches of Democrats at the event.
This is what happens when the media, paper and electronic, falls into the trap of Yellow Journalism. Any wet-behind-the-ears cub journalist should remember their history of journalism class in college about the effects of Yellow Journalism. It is disaster for them when they forget history’s lessons. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”—George Satanaya.
The effects of Yellow Journalism is the eroding of confidence in the media. The Hearst papers of the early 20th century is a prime example of how yellow journalism not only effected our politics but is influenced a lawlessness that ruined lives and brought the Spanish American War of 1898.
More specifically, the fruit of other peoples initiative. Socialism has no mechanism for rewarding initiative because its founding principle is criticism, not performance. As T. Roosevelt pointed out, criticism is a lot easier than performance.
I can see that. The purpose, nevertheless, is my question