Above the fold...
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 02:19 last edited by
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 02:29 last edited by
To compound matters, the morning after what some media outlets have described as the deadliest aviation disaster "involving a U.S. passenger jet" since February 2009, the Washington Post, which is the "hometown" newspaper in this case, decided to feature mostly anti-Trump articles about the President and his various nominees on its front page and above the fold.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the post has had an anti-Trump article on the front page every day for over 10 years now.
They wouldn't want to show any disrespect for the victims.
They were probably just concerned about maintaining the streak.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 02:32 last edited by
My understanding is that the Post closes its front page for next-day AM edition at 11 PM day before. They only had two hours to report it.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 02:35 last edited by George K
But, what did the Washington post consider newsworthy of their front page?
5 stories about Trump, Musk and RFK.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 02:46 last edited by
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 03:10 last edited by Doctor Phibes
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 04:08 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Democracy dies in darkness, y'all...
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 06:14 last edited by Aqua Letifer@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Not even close. There's a world of difference between print processes (which is what the fold refers to) and digital. One's fixed, the other's fluid in every possible way.
And then there's going into what the Washington Post purports to be versus what Redstate purports to be.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Democracy dies in darkness, y'all...
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 11:18 last edited by@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Not fair and balanced, then?
I guess if you want lack of bias, you can always fall back on your favourite, The Daily Mail.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Not even close. There's a world of difference between print processes (which is what the fold refers to) and digital. One's fixed, the other's fluid in every possible way.
And then there's going into what the Washington Post purports to be versus what Redstate purports to be.
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 11:24 last edited by@Aqua-Letifer said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Not even close. There's a world of difference between print processes (which is what the fold refers to) and digital. One's fixed, the other's fluid in every possible way.
And then there's going into what the Washington Post purports to be versus what Redstate purports to be.
I don't agree that the medium of distribution should affect the quality, however I guess the fact that Redstate tacitly admits they're nothing more than propoganda makes it OK. It would also appear to make anything they say essentially worthless.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 12:43 last edited by
At the Washington Post, some slob runs up to the editor at 10:00 PM.
"Boss, a plane just collided with a helicopter and both fell into the river. We start printing in an hour."
The Boss: "STOP THE PRESSES!!!"
That didn't happen.
What happened?
"Boss, a plane just collided with a helicopter and both fell into the river. We start printing in an hour."
The Boss: "Put it at the bottom, in a corner. We gotta run the politics stories."
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Not even close. There's a world of difference between print processes (which is what the fold refers to) and digital. One's fixed, the other's fluid in every possible way.
And then there's going into what the Washington Post purports to be versus what Redstate purports to be.
I don't agree that the medium of distribution should affect the quality, however I guess the fact that Redstate tacitly admits they're nothing more than propoganda makes it OK. It would also appear to make anything they say essentially worthless.
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 12:45 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
I guess the fact that Redstate tacitly admits they're nothing more than propoganda makes it OK.
No, what's worse is that WaPo doesn't admit that it's propaganda. And there's nothing tacit about Redstate's editorial decision. THey're as partisan as the DailyKos.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
I guess the fact that Redstate tacitly admits they're nothing more than propoganda makes it OK.
No, what's worse is that WaPo doesn't admit that it's propaganda. And there's nothing tacit about Redstate's editorial decision. THey're as partisan as the DailyKos.
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 13:12 last edited by@George-K said in Above the fold...:
No, what's worse is that WaPo doesn't admit that it's propaganda.
Well, admittedly I don't read newspapers, a habit I lost long ago back in the UK when most of the print-media bias was on the other side of the political spectrum.
Maybe you need Rupert Murdoch to take over some of your daily papers.
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Not fair and balanced, then?
I guess if you want lack of bias, you can always fall back on your favourite, The Daily Mail.
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 14:35 last edited by Aqua Letifer@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
No bias there.
No, sir. Not a bit.
If you take a quick gander at Redstate's front page, you'll find that it is full of stories describing how Trump's picks won their selection arguments against those awful Democrats.
Which is simply a statement of facts, presumably.
Just a faint whiff of hypocrisy in the air, perchance?
Gee, on one hand we have a blog dealing with politics. Maybe the sneaky name gave it away, huh? OTOH, we have a purported newspaper with a huge bias, and they keep telling us how fair and important they are.
Not fair and balanced, then?
I guess if you want lack of bias, you can always fall back on your favourite, The Daily Mail.
Bro it's 2025. If the page has ads on it, it's clickbait. Thar be no escape.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 14:44 last edited by
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 14:51 last edited by@89th said in Above the fold...:
I don't read WaPo...or anything else that's interested in stirring up
Now there's an interesting comment.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 14:57 last edited by
Hahaha TNCR notwithstanding bro
-
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 16:55 last edited by@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
Yet, you keep serving up WaPo stats like the Sermon On The Mount.
-
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 17:40 last edited by
I'm forced to read The Daily Mail very much against my will when my friends here insist on posting links to their appalling articles.
I feel that this is essentially an abusive relationship.
-
@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
Yet, you keep serving up WaPo stats like the Sermon On The Mount.
wrote on 31 Jan 2025, 18:48 last edited by@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
@89th said in Above the fold...:
@Jolly said in Above the fold...:
89th's favorite newspaper...
LOL my family got the Washington Times as a kid. I don't read WaPo or RedState or anything else that's interested in stirring up their viewers so they can get clicks and sell ads.
Yet, you keep serving up WaPo stats like the Sermon On The Mount.
Not sure why this is so hard to grasp. You asked where did the 30,573 lies stat come from? I provided you with a CSV file with each single one, fully analyzed and auditable. You discounted the whole list because the person who put it together works for WaPo, as if that discredits the facts in the spreadsheet. If RedState authors did the exact same work and provided the exact same spreadsheet, would you believe it then?