No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by FestinaLente on 06-Dec-2017 15:12:53
Time's Person of the Year
Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
HouseOfLametta - 06 Dec 2017 15:24:32 (#1 of 16)

Fucking marvellous.

Electro2 - 06 Dec 2017 15:25:18 (#2 of 16)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQXSHUIUQAEGPKM.jpg

FleurDuMal - 06 Dec 2017 15:34:18 (#3 of 16)

He will hate that!

Ahahahahaha .....

FestinaLente - 06 Dec 2017 15:42:43 (#4 of 16)

And the full article is quite scathing. Maybe his head will explode.

FleurDuMal - 06 Dec 2017 15:43:11 (#5 of 16)

Orange mess, splattered all over the walls of the Oval Office ....

FestinaLente - 06 Dec 2017 16:16:47 (#6 of 16)

Here's the full article:

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/time-person-of-the-year-2017-silence-breakers/?source=dam

SinnerBoy - 07 Dec 2017 09:48:21 (#7 of 16)

Trump won't worry, he'll just get some minion to fake a front page of Time, naming him as "Person of the Millennium."

Geribaldi - 08 Dec 2017 01:42:37 (#8 of 16)

Juanita Broaddrick rips Time’s ‘silence breakers’ snub: ‘I didn’t fit in their liberal victim mold’:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/7/ju
anita-broaddrick-rips-times-silence-breakers-snu/

Moschops - 08 Dec 2017 06:42:06 (#9 of 16)

Heh, they (and Geri) missed off the 'Could it be' at the start, turning a question into a statement. Good old journalism

MincePybus - 08 Dec 2017 08:54:45 (#10 of 16)

Hey, I never knew that the Washington Times was founded by Sun Myung Moon. Quality journalism for poor old Geri to be citing.

AdrianNTierney - 08 Dec 2017 15:45:46 (#11 of 16)

That's a silly thing to say, Mince. Does the owner's political stance necessarily prejudice the journalists writing for a publication?

Unless you can produce evidence in that direction, your charge is necessarily baseless.

MincePybus - 08 Dec 2017 15:53:12 (#12 of 16)

The owner's political stance doesn't. The owner's status as the demented founder of a crazy religious cult does, though. HTH.

AdrianNTierney - 08 Dec 2017 16:41:03 (#13 of 16)

Since in the case mentioned, the political stance is more critical than the craziness of the cult.

HTH.

MincePybus - 08 Dec 2017 16:45:37 (#14 of 16)

The political stance of the owner is critical to the quality of the journalism? That's an interesting take. Even the most rabid Corbynites over here wouldn't say that the Daily Telegraph is shit because its a right wing paper, even though both of those things are true. Still, you seppoes have somefunny ideas at times

Brunothecat - 08 Dec 2017 16:55:01 (#15 of 16)

It sort of misses the point in that it might have an influence but on a day to day basis what gets served up is a huge mishmash of material of varying levels of provenance. At present, there are no standards (in the UK anyway) to enable the consumer to have any idea as to how reliable (if at all) any source is, or whether or not they are being given the full story even if individual facts presented are accurate enough.

AdrianNTierney - 08 Dec 2017 17:01:44 (#16 of 16)

At present, there are no standards (in the UK anyway) to enable the consumer to have any idea as to how reliable (if at all) any source is, or whether or not they are being given the full story even if individual facts presented are accurate enough.



But that's always been true, everywhere. The only solution to that conundrum is to reference multiple sources of information in order to cross-check such 'information' as may interest a reader.

In the case of the Washington Times, its focus is pretty strictly the US government and national news. So its only competitor, the Washington Post, has regional news coverage to a certain extent and therefore has far greater readership.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » USA