If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Former DNC chair to buy the two most prestigious and influential newspapers in a critical swing-state with funds provided by Democratic donors. Of course the newspapers will remain legit and non-parti..Ok I couldn't not laugh   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 80
    More: Asinine, DNC, swing states, Southern New Jersey, John Yoo, blood donors, Ed Snider, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Ed Rendell  
•       •       •

4125 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2012 at 10:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-22 05:11:56 PM  
subby. In your post, you use "democrat" to modify the noun "donors." The adjectival of the noun "democrat" is "democratic." You're welcome.
 
2012-02-22 05:15:27 PM  
free market, right?
 
2012-02-22 05:17:33 PM  
Busted my irony meter, the moonie times did
 
2012-02-22 05:28:20 PM  
The Moonie Times just mass married the Dumbass tag and the FAIL tag.
 
2012-02-22 05:48:23 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: subby. In your post, you use "democrat" to modify the noun "donors." The adjectival of the noun "democrat" is "democratic." You're welcome.


Republic shills never seem to understand that, do they?

flaEsq: Busted my irony meter, the moonie times did


Hopefully a more legimate newspaper that's not owned by a blatant right-wing shill will pick up the story and report on it. The Wall Street Journal, perhaps.
 
2012-02-22 05:58:38 PM  
Relax, reverend Moon, you know you need the competition.
 
2012-02-22 06:22:19 PM  

propasaurus: The Moonie Times just mass married the Dumbass tag and the FAIL tag.


images.cheezburger.com
 
2012-02-22 06:33:51 PM  
This will be interesting. Ed Rendell is the anti-Derp, and when Derp meets anti-Derp, we all know what happens.

/i met ed once
//it was like shaking hands with a tornado
 
2012-02-22 07:42:42 PM  
Maybe Fox News will report this.
 
2012-02-22 07:52:55 PM  

flaEsq: Busted my irony meter, the moonie times did


So much this. I'm sure subby spends his evenings decrying the sad state of the media in the US with its liberal bias while watching fox news 24/7.
 
2012-02-22 07:59:00 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: subby. In your post, you use "democrat" to modify the noun "donors." The adjectival of the noun "democrat" is "democratic." You're welcome.


Also, both Republican and Democrat are proper nouns, so they must always been capitalized.
 
2012-02-22 09:49:34 PM  
Honestly, Rendell buying a couple of news papers is the least of the GOPs worries in Pennsylvania. Their real worry should be how they are going to explain to their tea-bagger constituents that their blue-collar, socially conservative, Pennsylvania-bred champion isn't a serious contender for their party's nomination.
 
2012-02-22 10:17:36 PM  
Meanwhile the most popular national TV news network directly and unabashedly employs party schills and not a single fark is given.
 
2012-02-22 10:34:24 PM  
It's so easy to dismiss someone's argument by saying that they are biased without addressing what they are saying.

"Liberal Bias" falls along these lines. It doesn't address the fact that someone could be of a political persuasion and still be objective. Moreover, it adds nothing to the discussion other than some bizarre name calling.
 
2012-02-22 10:34:26 PM  
What's a newspaper, is it something new that might be influential some day?
 
2012-02-22 10:39:18 PM  

KarmicDisaster: What's a newspaper, is it something new that might be influential some day?


It's basically the internet from two days ago re-written to appeal to the elderly and infirm.
 
2012-02-22 10:39:39 PM  
Does anyone really wait to decide who they're going to vote for until the editors of the local newspaper make their endorsement?
 
2012-02-22 10:39:58 PM  
And it's Soros who owns the Wall Street Journal and Barrons, correct? Just two of the most influential business journals out there.
 
2012-02-22 10:40:44 PM  
Well, free speech right conservatives?
 
2012-02-22 10:40:59 PM  
Ha ha this coming from the Moonie Times.

www.thephiladelphiafaith.org

I ROR'd!

wiki:
The Washington Times has lost money every year that it has been in business. By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion subsidizing the Times.[45] In 2003, The New Yorker reported that a billion dollars had been spent since the paper's inception, as Moon himself had noted in a 1991 speech, "Literally nine hundred million to one billion dollars has been spent to activate and run the Washington Times".[46] In 2002, Columbia Journalism Review suggested Moon had spent nearly $2 billion on the Times.[21] In 2008, Thomas F. Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer mentioned competition from the Times as a factor moving the Washington Post to the right, and said that Moon had "announced he will spend as many future billions as is needed to keep the paper competitive."[47]
 
2012-02-22 10:41:23 PM  

KarmicDisaster: What's a newspaper, is it something new that might be influential some day?


You do know that over 50 million newspapers are sold every day in the USA, right? That number was obviously higher before the internet came around but newspapers are still going strong.
 
2012-02-22 10:42:02 PM  
In case nobody's noticed, The WashTimes has become every bit as wingnutty in its news pages as Fox or the WSJ. Pot, meet kettle.
 
2012-02-22 10:44:57 PM  
So sorta like Slate, Newsweek, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.

/Note: I'm not saying these papers are remotely progressive, just that they're DNC house organs.
//There is a difference.
///A big one.
 
2012-02-22 10:45:18 PM  
Typical Rovian strategy. Use the echo chamber to pin your weaknesses on your opponent. Even given the obvious ethical questions involved here, it's hard to take the complaints seriously given the source.
 
2012-02-22 10:47:56 PM  
But the media is already run by libtards right? so what difference does it make?
 
2012-02-22 10:48:37 PM  
Only the GOP is allowed to use large media organizations to push their agenda!
 
2012-02-22 10:51:31 PM  
Oh, derpmitter, you crack me up!
 
2012-02-22 10:51:32 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It's so easy to dismiss someone's argument by saying that they are biased without addressing what they are saying.

"Liberal Bias" falls along these lines. It doesn't address the fact that someone could be of a political persuasion and still be objective. Moreover, it adds nothing to the discussion other than some bizarre name calling.


Ad hominem. We know.

The same goes for any so-called "conservative" outlets like the WSJ or Fox, of course - but you knew that, too.

Having said that, it happens on Fark all the time - Fox articles are routinely put down by FarkProgs all the time for bias regardless of what the article says. Just because one side does it doesn't mean that the other doesn't do it, too.

/besides, all publications are written by people
//people are biased and imperfect
///it's perfectly possible that ANY publication can be biased - this is rampant in social sciences, and even hard science journals are not immune to them
////look up the history of doctors washing their hands after handling corpses as an example
 
2012-02-22 10:51:48 PM  
Newspapers reverting back to their openly partisan form once used extensively as a viable business model since the invention of the printing press? Meh.
 
2012-02-22 10:54:07 PM  
legendary SmartestFunniest 2012-02-22 10:17:36 PM


Meanwhile the most popular national TV news network directly and unabashedly employs party schills and not a single fark is given.


Maybe you would like to weigh in on MSNBC running issue advocacy ads using MSNBC "talent" during their commercial runs... Not even Fox pulls that BS...
 
2012-02-22 10:54:38 PM  
As reported in the Washington Times and repeated by Fox News...
 
2012-02-22 10:55:58 PM  
The only fools are the ones who digest news stories without a critical eye.
 
2012-02-22 10:59:58 PM  

AcademGreen: Newspapers reverting back to their openly partisan form once used extensively as a viable business model since the invention of the printing press? Meh.


Actually, I prefer the openly partisan approach to bs "objectivity."

/my favorite magazine - the Economist, which wears its free market philosophy on its sleeves
 
2012-02-22 11:01:43 PM  
As long as the Republicans dont do it there is no problem.
 
2012-02-22 11:01:53 PM  
With so few political links grew lit per day such a shame that such a retadrdly unfunny submission should go through. Double negative subby? Really? That's the best comedic chops you've got?
 
2012-02-22 11:04:15 PM  
I used to subscribe to the Philly Inky until they priced me out. I still got the Sunday edition until they stopped publishing a local Sunday magazine supplement. I have not read an issue in over a decade. The newspaper sucks now which is why it is circling the drain. The Editorial page almost NEVER endorses anyone with an R after their name so that part of the paper won't change at all.
 
2012-02-22 11:11:36 PM  
Partisan newspapers are older than the nation, and in over two hundred years have not destroyed it. Your excitement in this matter has every appearance of an empty noise intended to draw attention from the exaggerations and distortions for which your own partisan rags are justly censured.
 
2012-02-22 11:18:01 PM  

jpo2269: legendary SmartestFunniest 2012-02-22 10:17:36 PM


Meanwhile the most popular national TV news network directly and unabashedly employs party schills and not a single fark is given.

Maybe you would like to weigh in on MSNBC running issue advocacy ads using MSNBC "talent" during their commercial runs... Not even Fox pulls that BS...


No, instead Fox has one of their "entertainers" say crazy shiat, just so their "news" people can then go on air with "there have been reports of..." later in the same day.
 
2012-02-22 11:18:24 PM  
Of course, back when Walter Annenberg was using the Philadelphia Inquirer to push Republican causes and sabotage the campaigns of Democratic politicians like Milton Shapp, it was completely non-partisan, right?

By the way, the Fark "headline" is not only not funny, it's not even in the form of a headline; there's a clumsily-worded comment where a concise, witty headline is supposed to be. How this asinine gob of click-bait ever got green-lighted at all, much less on the main page, is a matter that sits squarely between Drew and his conscience.
 
2012-02-22 11:22:28 PM  
Shut up, randomjsubmittard, you cock.
 
2012-02-22 11:25:07 PM  

legendary: Meanwhile the most popular national TV news network directly and unabashedly employs party schills and not a single fark is given.


If you aren't smart enough to be able to tell the difference between news shows and opinion shows on any major news network....well then, all I want to know is if the people at the mental retardation ward know you're using a computer unsupervised?
 
2012-02-22 11:27:06 PM  

Medical Toilet: Shut up, randomjsubmittard, you cock.


heaven forbid he want an unbiased media
 
2012-02-22 11:27:17 PM  

Cyberluddite: BritneysSpeculum: subby. In your post, you use "democrat" to modify the noun "donors." The adjectival of the noun "democrat" is "democratic." You're welcome.

Republic shills never seem to understand that, do they?

flaEsq: Busted my irony meter, the moonie times did

Hopefully a more legimate newspaper that's not owned by a blatant right-wing shill will pick up the story and report on it. The Wall Street Journal, perhaps.


How does one become a "republican shill?" I could use the money.
 
2012-02-22 11:30:06 PM  
As opposed to the GOP, which is simply bought and paid for.
 
2012-02-22 11:31:14 PM  
Republicans did it first, that makes it OK.
 
2012-02-22 11:35:10 PM  

Daraymann: Republicans did it first, that makes it OK.


it's more of a case of "It's only okay if it reinforces my world view!"
 
2012-02-22 11:46:49 PM  
Come on now! That's now way to talk about the "King of Peace"!


"On March 23, the Dirksen Senate Office Building was the scene of a coronation ceremony for Rev. Sun Myung Moon, owner of the conservative Washington Times newspaper and UPI wire service, who was given a bejeweled crown by Rep. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill. Afterward, Moon told his bipartisan audience of Washington power players he would save everyone on Earth as he had saved the souls of Hitler and Stalin - the murderous dictators had been born again through him, he said. In a vision, Moon said the reformed Hitler and Stalin vouched for him, calling him "none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent." "
Link
 
2012-02-22 11:51:07 PM  

pedobearapproved: Medical Toilet: Shut up, randomjsubmittard, you cock.

heaven forbid he want an unbiased media


A desire for "unbiased media" has led us to a point where derpderpherpaderp is treated with as much regard as actual, factual reporting.
 
2012-02-22 11:54:19 PM  
The difference between in-the-can-for-Democrats and in-the-can-for-Republican ideological news organizations:

i486.photobucket.com
"We are a totally non-partisan legitimate news organization, and if you think we just carry buckets for the Democrats then you're just an evil Nazi racist bastard. Like FoxNews!"


i486.photobucket.com
"Yeah, we root for Republicans over Democrats. And...?"
 
2012-02-22 11:56:53 PM  
I don't know if Ed Rendell owning the papers will save journalism in Philadelphia but the portions in the company cafeteria will most sure increase.
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report