The Washington Post and the NY Times have an identical picture on their front pages today. That’s worse than the usual Newsweek/Time cover duplications.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Newspapers Think We Should Pay For This
October 2nd, 2009
40 Comments
Eh, dude. I’m not trying to throw a moving pick, but I’m looking for your-take on, you know, that Olympic thingy.
I don’t get your point, OW. This happens all the time, especially with wire service photos. What’s the beef?
That’s not half as insulting as asking to pay for Elitist Fuckhead David Brooks, Lunatic Neocon Enabler Charles Krauthaumer, Tom “Suck on This!” Friedman, or Richard “I know funny!” Cohen.
1. Our two most important newspapers (for what that’s worth) probably don’t check with one another before designing their front pages.
2. The photo is an interesting one. Check the identical heights of each row: the soldiers were obviously measured within a micron to create this clone effect. Only North Korea would equal that degree of fanaticism, I warrant. It says something.
It’s a sign of just how much of what runs in newspapers is not original material. Here’s a “news biopsy” that found only one-sixth of the content in the Columbia Daily Tribune was original content.
And the newspapers say bloggers are stealing THEIR thunder.
but I’m looking for your-take on, you know, that Olympic thingy
I said what I had to say days ago.
joaquin,
if he can ignore it, it’s like it never happened. Just like today’s unemployment report!!!
if he can ignore it, it’s like it never happened
You mean the same way you’re ignoring the link OW provided to his post on the subject?
…if he can ignore it, it’s like it never happened.
And maybe if we can ignore the right wing morons who are currently cheering the IOCs decision*, we can pretend we have a sane and reasonable opposition party in this country.
*Running an errand for work this afternoon I caught Michael Medved calling it a “triumph for America” that Chicago didn’t get the Olympics.
Just like today’s unemployment report!!!
So I guess you’re now among the 149 million Fox News says are unemployed?
It’s a great shot … I can see why they both used it.
Check the identical heights of each row: the soldiers were obviously measured within a micron to create this clone effect.
For the record, it’s an illusion.
You form up the company.
You are told to get in front of the man in front of you, if he is taller than you.
When you are all done , you “right face”.
Then you get in front of the man in front of you, if he is taller than you.
When you march in company formation, you appear to be the same height.
I was privileged to represent Fort Dix in an Armed Forces’s Day Parade (10 points for any one who can tell me what day that is without looking it up) in Philadelphia. The parade was viewed by several hundred thousand people. I still get chills of pride when I remember it .
It’s kind of a striking photo. Can’t blame them. I’m sure they both use AP often enough that this happens now and then.
“I was privileged to represent Fort Dix in an Armed Forces’s Day Parade (10 points for any one who can tell me what day that is without looking it up) in Philadelphia. The parade was viewed by several hundred thousand people.”
Bullshit. Unless the Mummers or the Phillies are involved, you ain’t seeing that kind of crowd in Philadelphia.
Matt , who said the Mummers weren’t there? Do you get a thrill out of calling someone a liar ?
I was there — I read the Inquirer the next day…
How about you?
I had to march in a few parades, but I didn’t call it a “privilege,” I called it “messing up my day off and making me polish my boots and get a haircut.” Half an hour of right-shoulder-arms is all you need in an entire lifetime.
You can be in Portland Maine or Portland Oregon and the local paper will be full of AP and Creators Syndicate crap. It’s all the same.
I said what I had to say days ago.
Hey, ODub, you don’t have to tell joaquin– he had the very first comment in that thread. And what did he have to say? “The only reason he’s going is because IT IS A DONE DEAL.
It is unbelievable that he’s making this trip, plus complete entourage, for something as irrelevant as the Olympics.”
To recap:
1) joaquin was certain that Chicago had already won, and that the big faker Obama was only going there to take credit.
2) he thinks the Olympics are irrelevant. Which must be why he’s pushing for you to comment on them, or something.
3) he can now pretend that you didn’t post on it, because he just needs more space for his celebration of America’s loss.
What a fine, fine contribution to the conversation.
Ya know, there’s nothing stopping you wing-nuts from getting your own blogs. It’s kind of sad and pathetic to demand that O-dub write about things you want him too (and that he happened to write about days ago).
The Olympics in 2016 would have been good for Chicago, and good for America. That doesn’t matter to conservatives.
If they can use the IOC decision to try and make the President look bad, they cheer for a negative decision. This is what they’re reduced to.
No wonder sane people are pointing and laughing at them.
If it was a bad decision to make the pitch for Chicago to get the Olympics , then it was . And commentators can, and possibly should say so. I, for one, have my own opinion about it which I will keep to myself.
But if the left expected us to listen to vituperation and insults hurled at Pres Bush, they had better get used to the idea that Pres Obama is going to get criticized whenever he appears to stumble. The right is not heaping anywhere near the scorn and contempt that was heaped on Pres Bush (please don’t provide me with one or two examples, unless you would like me to link you to hundreds , if not thousands , terrible things that were said about Pres Bush),but Pres Obama is beginning to exhibit feet of clay.
It may have been a bad decision.
But yesterday, when I encountered a coworker who is a “conservative”, he greeted me with a pointed finger and a “Yessssss! Obama failed! In your face!”
This, in a nutshell, was the “conservative” reaction to the IOC decision. Never mind that it was a loss for a great American city, and for our country. All that matters is that Obama has “failed.”
Screw them.
I don’t think it was necessarily a bad decision for Obama to personally make an appeal for Chicago, since it is his hometown. The precedent had been set by Blair and Sarkozy in the competition for the 2012 games, and Obama would have been equally criticized for not going if Chicago lost. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.
The IOC absolutely made the correct decision. Rio had a very strong argument in terms of the games never before being held in a South American country.
This, in a nutshell, was the “conservative” reaction to the IOC decision.
I beg to differ, but there were many columns written about it, by conservatives, with all manner of perspectives, none of which included joy over the President’s failed attempt.
Your fellow office worker is just one person.
and Obama would have been equally criticized for not going if Chicago lost.
Paranoia strikes deep; into your heart it will creep.
none of which included joy over the President’s failed attempt.
Um, Frank?
Oliver: It’s been a few years since I’ve visited your site. Used to be here all the time some years back. It’s matured a lot and I’m so impressed. It seems to me you were eleven years old when this all began. And I am very glad to see “Like Kryptonite to Stupid” still has a place of honor.
Media failures are a pet peeve of mine. I’ve decided that on top of all the other things they are – and are not – they are mostly LAZY. And those page one screenshots sum it up.
The precedent had been set by Blair and Sarkozy in the competition for the 2012 games …
Just FYI, the head of every other country in the running for the 2016 Olympics went to Copenhagen this year. If Obama hadn’t gone, he would have been the only national leader to blow it off.
Um, Frank?
Every single one of those persons quoted in that article, happy that Chicago didn’t get the Olympics, is complete and total scum. Fuck all of them.
The conservatives are only concerned with Obama failing. Fucking scum. No substantive ideas, no dignity, no pride – they claim to love America, while reveling in the Presidents’ “defeats”. Disgusting, reprehensible, vile people, the lot of them.
Fuck them all.
Meh. Would have been nice I guess. But it’s funny to see racist wing-nuts latch on to this.
As I’ve said before, if President Obama could cure cancer the KKK/GOP would bitch about curing AIDS.
They got nothing.
I was referring to the columns that I read. I don’t blame those people for being glad that Obama failed, although that is not the course I would take. They have been listening to gushing and oooing and aaaaahing that has accompanied Pres Obama’s every word and gesture for two and one half years. Conservative commentators are not emmisaries from Satan, but they are human.
As I said , I have my own reasons for believing that he should never have gone to the IOC, and my own reasons as to why he did so. One of the reasons he should not have gone is that, if Chicago was not chosen, he could not possibly look good for going.
I feel that he should have considered that eventuality, and not gone.
But to be happy that he failed is to be happy that the Olympics ma will not be in the United States. That is rather juvenile, and a sort of spiteful reaction.
People who continually raise the specter of racism to explain why more and more people are getting angry at Pres Obama maye be covering up their own feeling that they made a mistake believing in him — may be — but they are definitely minimizing his errors, while falsely smearing his detractors to justify to themselves that it is not that Pres Obama is making mistakes, it is that evil people tell lies. That is pretty much the opposite of the perspective they had towards Pres Bush, which was , “Bush must be evil — look at the people who support him”.
A little weaselly of you not to name those multitudes of columns that you read yesterday by conservative authors NOT gleeful over Obama’s “failure,” Frank.
Which columns were those, exactly? You know, the ones expressing a variety of perspectives?
Yeah , it was “weasly”, Bruce …
Absolutely.
Perhaps it was something else : Like throwing more gasoline on the fire, by having ten people disagree with me, while ten others told me that, actually, these people were glad that Obama failed , because I didn’t read it right, and I’m a right wing troll, and “Why do you hate America, Frank?” , and “You are a bigot and a racist, because you don’t love Our Dear President”
No, thanks.
Yeah, it was “weasly” …
Go check Pajamas Media , or Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web — no gloating there.
If that’s not enough for you , go back to “weasly”.
Deep in their hearts the GOP cretins don’t consider Obama a legitimate POTUS because he’s black. And hence, they think it makes sense that mocking him for not getting the Olympics, something that all rational people would consider to be a good thing for the country, is what they should do.
They are incapable of understanding that things that are good for the country might, indeed, benefit Obama politically. But they can’t get over their simple bigotry. In fact, their bigotry is apparently much stronger than their sense of patriotism. Sad.
I don’t know which GOP you are referring to, but I believe that Obama was elected by people who were willing to vote for a black candidate.
People who are disappointed with him now, and , yes, angry, are not diappointed or angry because he is black.
Think a minute — they knew he was black on Inauguration, did they not?
So where did this idea occur to them that Pres Obama is not a legitimate President because he is black?
Because you said so, or the blog writers say so, doesn’t make it so. If you could produce one piece of evidence that such a change has taken place , besides an occasional email, or derogatory picture , you might be believable.
As of now, you are simply hoping that people will believe you if you say it often enough.
The problem is , that you cannot believe that anyone doesn’t like someone in whom you have invested ao much, and it threatens your self-image . That’s my opinion, anyway.
And if you don’t have any proof for what you say, then I don’t need any, either .
“People who are disappointed with him now, and , yes, angry, are not diappointed or angry because he is black.”
Please explain this “who” to me. Because his national approval remains twice that of what Bush II’s was, and personally I think he’s doing a great job.
But as a Republican, you must have plenty of “angry former Obama supporters” on speed-dial, I’m sure. And I’ll bet at least half of the tea-baggers actually didn’t vote for McCain. Right. Sure, Frank.
“So where did this idea occur to them that Pres Obama is not a legitimate President because he is black?”
Right. There hasn’t been a single bigotted outburst or people sending pictures of the White House in front of a field of watermelons, or pictures of him with a bone in his nose circulated by GOP activists:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/conservative_activist_forwards_racist_pic_showing.php?ref=fpa
Like I said, maybe you aren’t a racist. But you sure as hell are a hypocrite for hating Obama for doing exactly what Bush II did re: spending. In fact, at least Obama’s stimulus bill actually accomplished something if that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal can be believed.
a) I don’t hate Pres Obama
b) You still have not provided any evidence that the anger or diapppointment with Pres Obama is motivated ny racism. You have merely found some incidents of racism, some from people who were racists before Pres Obama was even elected .
c) You are trying to make a case that no one else is arguing.
d) Whatever Pres Obama and his Congress are doing that resembles what Pres Bush and HIS Congress did, is not what has people angry.
But, rave on , if it makes you feel better. Why let a lack of evidence throw you off ?
You showed me two, Frank, and I found one more, by Joe Scarborough on HuffPo, so I stand corrected.
I guess what I meant to say is “Conservative” — a la FOX, Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, et al — as opposed to Conservative, like WSJ, etc.
And I apologise for the “weaselly” remark, as in “like a weasel”, as opposed to “weasily”, whatever that is.
I don’t watch television, or listen to Limbaugh, Savage, or any other right – wing radio guy
A little weaselly of you not to name those multitudes of columns that you read yesterday by conservative authors NOT gleeful over Obama’s “failure,” Frank.
Which columns were those, exactly? You know, the ones expressing a variety of perspectives?