You know, I don't consider it "asinine." Yes, you'd think most papers would feature this as their headlining news, but if it's a little local-type paper, it's not exactly necessary. Anyone that applies the term "asinine" to this is a douche.

Now that's patriotism right there! New President? Nah...not a big news item.

it's their paper, and their choice. 1st amendment FTW!

Meh, a local paper only has to cater to its subscribers. Even if they're retarded Texans it still must cater to them.

7of7: Even if they're retarded Texans it still must cater to them.

Like this retarded Texan FTA;

"They could have knocked me over with a feather," said Sarah Whitaker. "I was flabbergasted. I couldn't imagine such an historical event would not be on the front page somewhere on The Terrell Tribune."

the_cnidarian: Like this retarded Texan FTA;

I'm guessing they know their readership better than you or I do.

congratulations numbnuts. Your fail is almost at "Dewey Beats Truman" levels.

The day before the front page story was on McCain. Seems pretty weird to me that on the day before, the presidential race was front-page material, but the results of said presidential race were not.

Of course, the name of the town is Terrell. I can think of another person in North Texas by the name of Terrell who does wacky stuff and pisses people off all the time...

What a stupid business decision. People were snatching up every cover for posterity they could find. When butthurt wins out over cash, you know the GOP has gone off its rocker.

Curious as to what their 2000 & 2004 cover stories were.

Leave them alone. If they find out what's going on they may be tempted to send another presidential candidate of their own, and we all know how the last one turned out.

They simply got the wrong edition. In that part of Texas, they print a "White Newspaper" and a "Coloreds Newspaper"

Typical small town. A paper where I live would probably have news of a nuclear war on page 3 while page 1 talked about property reassessment.

But while there were a few Obama-related stories within the paper, there was no story devoted to the presidential victory.

I can see a podunk newspaper choosing to headline with a local race, but to not carry a single story about the presidential race at all - even a truncated AP or Reuters piece - is weird. It was all over the front page of my town's local paper, which is smaller than Terrell, TX.

We're selling them to Mexico anyway.

FredaDeStilleto: Typical small town. A paper where I live would probably have news of a nuclear war on page 3 while page 1 talked about property reassessment.

I came in to say something similar. Miranda Lamberts song Famous in a Small Town covers it. That county seat affects their lives more than Pres. Obama.

Lionel Mandrake: But while there were a few Obama-related stories within the paper, there was no story devoted to the presidential victory.

I can see a podunk newspaper choosing to headline with a local race, but to not carry a single story about the presidential race at all - even a truncated AP or Reuters piece - is weird. It was all over the front page of my town's local paper, which is smaller than Terrell, TX.

THIS

Good for them. 1st amendment remember? I am already pissed at Obama on his 2nd amendment stance.

Oh noes. A local newsie didn't gobble the knob of the One. shocking.

1st Amendment is awesome. Good for them. Oh wait, they don't like the protests and the criticism and the national scorn? Well too bad, that's 1st Amendment too!

Most likely they had the layout done for a McCain victory and when that didn't happen they didn't have the time to re-write another story and jam it into the space so they just took one of their lesser already written stories and plugged it in.

That's my guess.

queezyweezel: it's their paper, and their choice. 1st amendment FTW!

And it's our choice to call them out for what they are. First amendment FTW indeed.

Lionel Mandrake:
I can see a podunk newspaper choosing to headline with a local race, but to not carry a single story about the presidential race at all - even a truncated AP or Reuters piece - is weird.


It's not surprising to me that there wasn't even mention of it (I too can see it not being the headline for a small town). There are people here that are so full of hate and the "your team vs. my team" attitude and they don't even know why. There's a lady I work with who is one of the most uninformed people I know and she can't even look at the TV when something is merely flashed about Obama on the screen. She will turn away and often leave the room in an exaggerated manner.

Is this paper a podunk weekly which ignores the world outside its county (unless residents of that county do stuff), or is it a podunk daily that aspires to at least mention national/international stories?

While it is an exercise of the paper's 1st Amendment rights, it seems a very juvenile method of exercising said rights.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Oh noes. A local newsie didn't gobble the knob of the One. shocking.

Keep stomping your feet. It worked so well in defeating Clinton in 1996.

But while there were a few Obama-related stories within the paper, there was no story devoted to the presidential victory.

OK, I can see their point about no frontpage story, but not a single story about Obama winning? I think they might just be sore losers or have a lot of intolerant readers.

I bet if McCain won, they would have run a photoshopped picture of McCain standing next to Jesus and surrounded by trumpet playing angels announcing his victory over the heathens.

queezyweezel: it's their paper, and their choice. 1st amendment FTW!

Ha ha. Love it!

I'm all for posterity, but people who picket should be liquidated.
I just love the righteous indignation.
Suck, snapperheads.

/Anyone know Big Cheryl from Terrell?

It's completely their right to do this. If you don't like the 1st amendment move to another country.

But the entire newspaper would have devoted to McCain/Palin if they would have won. I would bet anything on that. Partisan a-holes they are.

sour grapes.

This is meaningful, how? Any newspaper is well in it's right to do whatever the fark they want. The only legalities applying to them are the same ones THAT AFFORD THEM THIS RIGHT. I like Obama, but fail to see why this should upset anyone.

Do I really have to break out FOX as a more high profile example of the free press doing whatever the f*ck it wants?

frankencj: Good for them. 1st amendment remember? I am already pissed at Obama on his 2nd amendment stance.

Yes, because criticism of stupid-ass decisions is totally against the concept of free speech. I'm sorry that we're all infringing on that paper's ability to publish. I'll go report myself to the authorities now.

stpickrell: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Oh noes. A local newsie didn't gobble the knob of the One. shocking.

Keep stomping your feet. It worked so well in defeating Clinton in 1996.

Are you even trying to make sense or has the hangover given you dain bramage?

I believe them!

HipsterHolocaust: This is meaningful, how? Any newspaper is well in it's right to do whatever the fark they want. The only legalities applying to them are the same ones THAT AFFORD THEM THIS RIGHT. I like Obama, but fail to see why this should upset anyone.

Do I really have to break out FOX as a more high profile example of the free press doing whatever the f*ck it wants?

Wow, how do people this stupid even survive, let alone operate a computer?

Let me make this clear: the first amendment DOES NOT protect you from the consequences of your retarded speech. It also does not mean that people are not allowed to be upset over your speech. If you say something retarded, people are free to inform you of their displeasure.

So wtf are you talking about again?

I didn't read the article, but I'll assume leading up to the election of said commissioner they did tons of coverage on it, and none on the presidential race, because that wouldn't affect their readers.

I'd like to go back through their history and see what they've chosen to put on the front page in the past.

Not necessarily political stuff, I'm thinking that if they ever had OJ or Britney on the cover then these people deserve a colossal cockpunch.

Abner Doon: frankencj: Good for them. 1st amendment remember? I am already pissed at Obama on his 2nd amendment stance.

Yes, because criticism of stupid-ass decisions is totally against the concept of free speech. I'm sorry that we're all infringing on that paper's ability to publish. I'll go report myself to the authorities now.

Sorry, I am just pissed that right after his win, he posts that he plans on reinstating a more severe version of the AWB and will repeal the Tiahrt amendment. So much for honesty in politics.
In other words, I feel the same as the paper in question at the moment.

mashed potato cat: and none on the presidential race

From the link:Protestors pointed out that on Election Day, the Tribune had printed a John McCain-focused story as their lead story on the front page.


They are just ignorant sore losers.

mason4300: You know, I don't consider it "asinine." Yes, you'd think most papers would feature this as their headlining news, but if it's a little local-type paper, it's not exactly necessary. Anyone that applies the term "asinine" to this is a douche.

Then call me your vinegar girl, because THAT IS ASININE.

Country first.

Of course it's their right not to print it but the election of any president, especially our nation's first black president, is a huge news story not only here but all around the world. Their choice to not print it just shows they are a bunch of partisan hacks and sore losers to boot.

Country First!...well, unless the other guy wins.

To be fair to Terrell, Texas, they have traditionally eschewed print for such news and prefer a town crier.

Don't complain to a paper and don't cancel your subscription. Complain to it's advertisers.

What did they have on 9/12/01 for the banner?

"Local man fights for chicken coup expansion; city council to convene"

SilentStrider: congratulations numbnuts. Your fail is almost at "Dewey Beats Truman" levels.

In a word, No. And to use your own, you Fail. Firstly, "Dewey [defeats] Truman" was a failure of poll data. At the time, that paper relied on a particular telephone poll, at a time when phones were still considered items for the better-off. It was a journalistic mistake. But more importantly, your silly indignation and dismissal of the TFA paper actually IS "un-American" (FAIL) in that you seem to be ignoring the greatest gift our Bill of Rights has given us. Not Palin 'un_american,' but REALLY "un-American."

Good luck understanding what this country is all about, novo-nuts. And good luck with your stupid use of the venerated 'fail' when it's clear that you're the butt of the joke.

Reminds me of this conservative radio DJ here in Michigan. Michigan goes for Obama decisively, the DJ's county even goes for Obama decisively, and this guy gets on the air and claims that the majority of Michiganders are pissed off about the results. Although in this case it's just some Texan paper showing it's bias. I'm sure the cover would have been a story about McCain winning had he won. Hell... they probably had a front page designed and ready to go just in case he did.

Dear Texas:

Obama's election is not historical. It only just happened. Some day it will be historical, but until then it is only just historic.

And I know you want to sound proper by putting the word "an" before "historical," but that doesn't really say anything about yourself other than the fact that you have a predisposition towards applying useless and arbitrary speech patterns when speaking a language that is already needlessly complicated.

haplo53: queezyweezel: it's their paper, and their choice. 1st amendment FTW!

And it's our choice to call them out for what they are. First amendment FTW indeed.

What are they?

Marla Singer's Laundry: What did they have on 9/12/01 for the banner?

"Local man fights for chicken coup expansion; city council to convene"

No, wait...

"Raccoons knock over two bee-hives"

Let's see, we have a front page story about a black man winning the election. It's just not THE black man or election that some readers already knew about, but wanted to read about again anyway.

Kudos to the only paper (that we know about) who chose to differentiate themselves from the pack. That right there should make their post-election issue a collectible.

SherKhan: To be fair to Terrell, Texas, they have traditionally eschewed print for such news and prefer a town crier.

Is there still a state mental hospital in Terrell? Maybe a retard 'graduated' and became a newspaper publisher?