Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Let that rag die.

What is your alternative recommendation?

WSJ has been impressive lately imo. I used to dismiss it as too conservative, but I think it’s more centrist and reasonable than anything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Let that rag die.

What is your alternative recommendation?

Anonymous wrote:Good. Let that rag die.

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post is becoming a parody of itself. It's nearly unreadable.

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post is becoming a parody of itself. It's nearly unreadable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who don't subscribe to newspapers who complain about the news should shut the fkcu up. You're part of the problem.

No, we should not. Sorry you don't like the stance or the opinion. I would tell you that it is you that should SFTU but its easier to let you keep talking so people see what you say and make up their own mind, like a adult would.

You are a freeloader. If you don’t pay, then don’t read (and definitely don’t complain). Newspapers are not charities.

No, I chose not to support businesses that hate me. There are alot of ways to consume news these days. Sorry newspapers have become irrelevant.

I think the problem here is that you're an idiot. But, please, feel free to get all your news from your neighbor's slow cousin's blog. Sounds like that's more your speed anyway.

Ad Hominem, thats ok. You can't win the argument. But keep trying. You may be that participation badge at some point.

Your argument was "I don't want to buy a newspaper." Ok, well, thanks for sharing. Not really an argument or even very interesting. Educated people though read newspapers and they support newspapers because democracies cannot function without them.

No, my argument was I don't buy from news sources that hate me. Last time I checked, WSJ is a newspaper. And please spare me the lecture on democracies. the US is not one. It is a Constitutional Republic. Do you or someone in your family work for WaPo? You sure seem offended.

I agree that the WSJ is a legit newspaper and better then the Post in many ways, but a constitutional republic is absolutely a type of democracy. I'm not sure why you think we're not.

In case I missed something, in the Pledge of Allegiance, the line is "and to the Republic for which it stands" I did not hear the words "and to the democracy"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the Posts obsession with race? You cannot seem to go by a day without some piece on race in America. Paper is garbage.

This may be shocking to you, but race is clearly something that America grapples with. Just because you don't want to talk about it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Clearly, it makes you uncomfortable. Poor baby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the Posts obsession with race? You cannot seem to go by a day without some piece on race in America. Paper is garbage.

This may be shocking to you, but race is clearly something that America grapples with. Just because you don't want to talk about it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Clearly, it makes you uncomfortable. Poor baby.

Anonymous wrote:What is the Posts obsession with race? You cannot seem to go by a day without some piece on race in America. Paper is garbage.

Anonymous wrote:A recent article about the rails-to-trails movement, accompanied by a color photo of --- wait for it -- the C&O Canal towpath!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the Posts obsession with race? You cannot seem to go by a day without some piece on race in America. Paper is garbage.

+1
And sexuality/gender/ethnicity, etc. I posted about this a few months ago on a different thread, but I noticed the difference between the WaPo and WSJ immediately. The WaPo deliberately weaves in race, gender, etc. issues to *every* article. They cannot just write a piece without making some sort of -ism the focus. The WSJ, on the other hand, will take a story about real estate, for example, and cite several couples. Tim and his husband David, or Jane and her partner Stella, for instance. (Or Sally and her husband Pete, etc. you get the point) That's the only reference to their sexuality. Just an intro to cover the basics. They never patronize their audience, they simply state the facts, interview a wide range of people, and get on with it.

They weave race into every piece, EXCEPT when decsribing the race of violent felons. Then they have a blanket prohibitionon identifing black men. White men are identified as "white shooter' but black men are referred to as simply 'shooter'.

Which is hilarious because black men commit about three times the shootings that white men do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who don't subscribe to newspapers who complain about the news should shut the fkcu up. You're part of the problem.

No, we should not. Sorry you don't like the stance or the opinion. I would tell you that it is you that should SFTU but its easier to let you keep talking so people see what you say and make up their own mind, like a adult would.

You are a freeloader. If you don’t pay, then don’t read (and definitely don’t complain). Newspapers are not charities.

No, I chose not to support businesses that hate me. There are alot of ways to consume news these days. Sorry newspapers have become irrelevant.

I think the problem here is that you're an idiot. But, please, feel free to get all your news from your neighbor's slow cousin's blog. Sounds like that's more your speed anyway.

Ad Hominem, thats ok. You can't win the argument. But keep trying. You may be that participation badge at some point.

Your argument was "I don't want to buy a newspaper." Ok, well, thanks for sharing. Not really an argument or even very interesting. Educated people though read newspapers and they support newspapers because democracies cannot function without them.

No, my argument was I don't buy from news sources that hate me. Last time I checked, WSJ is a newspaper. And please spare me the lecture on democracies. the US is not one. It is a Constitutional Republic. Do you or someone in your family work for WaPo? You sure seem offended.

I agree that the WSJ is a legit newspaper and better then the Post in many ways, but a constitutional republic is absolutely a type of democracy. I'm not sure why you think we're not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the Posts obsession with race? You cannot seem to go by a day without some piece on race in America. Paper is garbage.

+1
And sexuality/gender/ethnicity, etc. I posted about this a few months ago on a different thread, but I noticed the difference between the WaPo and WSJ immediately. The WaPo deliberately weaves in race, gender, etc. issues to *every* article. They cannot just write a piece without making some sort of -ism the focus. The WSJ, on the other hand, will take a story about real estate, for example, and cite several couples. Tim and his husband David, or Jane and her partner Stella, for instance. (Or Sally and her husband Pete, etc. you get the point) That's the only reference to their sexuality. Just an intro to cover the basics. They never patronize their audience, they simply state the facts, interview a wide range of people, and get on with it.