‘Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in addition to USAToday. They also publish the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.
Still think Gannett has a liberal bias? ‘
It’s must be beyond someone’s level of comprehension that the company would have different divisions and hire different editorial staffs for the different publications.
ICallMasICM - 09:10am on 10/26/2005
It was some special Halloween effects
ICallMasICM - 09:10am on 10/26/2005
Gee, I seem to remember cries of “RACISM!” when O.J. Simpson’s (he’s still searching, by the way…) doctored mugshot appeared on the cover of one of the big weekly newsmags.
Where are those hypocrites people today?
Alex Nunez - 09:10am on 10/26/2005
[...] CONDI’S POSSESSED BY A GOA’ULD!!! See? Proof! Okay, just kidding. But it’s funny because USA deliberately doctored this photo of Condi to make her eyes more menacing. The first photo is the doctored one, and the following one is the original. Read more here: http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/10/26/usa-today-caught-doctoring-photos_________________I am the tides of Time, the dealer of fortunes, the messenger of Death, the bringer of Life, the winds of the Sky, the waves of the Sea. I see all, I know all, and I am God’s servant. Episode III, ‘Psychotic Techno Babble’, is now 60% complete. Fate would stare at the cookie and wonder how he can use it to torture Mara, destroy her country, and get her mad at him. After which he would get frustrated at the tactics Invictus used to debate milk-chocolate cookie use and yell a bit, leaving all parties looking a bit sheepish. Then he would compose a parody making fun of all parties involved, the entire time not eating the Cookie. [...]
The Jedi Council :: View topic - The Media has cau - 10:10am on 10/26/2005
ICall:
It is obviously beyond your comprehension that the owners of a multi-billion dollar media company—-y’know, the cats who sign the paychecks—-have editorial control over their products.
Don Myers - 12:10pm on 10/26/2005
And the products would all be the same? That’s pretty clueless even for you.
ICallMasICM - 12:10pm on 10/26/2005
I’ll try to be civil -
There is a difference between the product and the ownership.
Maybe you think the ownership which you describe as ’ a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military’ whatever that nonsense means
‘cannot control it’s employees enough to control editorial content.’
They probably could but since it’s a business they would distribute different products and it would be unlikely that they would use the same editorial viewpoint for each product or what would be the point of offering different products. Since they have different products intended to generate revenue from different client markets they undoubtedly have differnt divisions with different editorial staff and different operations.
Whatever your indication of their ‘ties to the Bush regime and the military’ I’m assuming they had those same publications prior to 2001 and will have them after 2009 and the products that cater to the military market will undoubtedly publish one POV and USAToday and the many small regionals which I believe are the bulk of Gannetts chain will publish another POV. Whatever your view of Bush or corporate media corporate ownership doesn’t imply generic product content or else there’d be only 1 product to choose from and obviously there’s not.
ICallMasICM - 12:10pm on 10/26/2005
Are you PRETENDING not to understand what I’m talkin’ ‘bout, ICall, or are you really like that?
Tell ya what—-let’s turn the question around.
Explain to me how a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military, cannot control it’s employees enough to control editorial content.
Explain to me how a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military, is actually a liberal/socialist consortium dedicated to making Bush look bad.
Don Myers - 12:10pm on 10/26/2005
BTW, I’ve seen some editorials in the Army Times that have dared to offend the dark overlords at Gannett by actually criticizing the President for such issues as troop pay and benefits.
BTW, I admire your moxie ICall.
It’s not easy to argue with an idiot.
Brandon - 01:10pm on 10/26/2005
You catch them again and again and the left still denies media bias.
I have a number of thoughts.
1. In the old movies the black stereotype was of a black with big eyes and white teeth. When Secretary Rice was nominated for her job a number of lefty outlet’s ran editorial cartoons picking on her being black. Doonesbury also stepped over the line.
2. The comment that this picture was touched up for print sounds good, but I frankly fail to see how a person puts this picture up without noticing. You change it and it’s right there on your screen. I think it’d be easier to change something so it looked good on your screen but didn’t in the paper. Perhaps the wrong picture got posted to the website? But they didn’t put that explanation in their retraction.
3. I would think the media would be very careful and limited about touching up a picture. What do they have to sell besided credibility?
‘Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers in addition to USAToday. They also publish the Army Times, Navy Times, Navy Times Marine Corps, Air Force Times, Federal Times, Defense Times, and Military Market.
Still think Gannett has a liberal bias? ‘
It’s must be beyond someone’s level of comprehension that the company would have different divisions and hire different editorial staffs for the different publications.
It was some special Halloween effects
Gee, I seem to remember cries of “RACISM!” when O.J. Simpson’s (he’s still searching, by the way…) doctored mugshot appeared on the cover of one of the big weekly newsmags.
Where are those hypocrites people today?
[...] CONDI’S POSSESSED BY A GOA’ULD!!! See? Proof! Okay, just kidding. But it’s funny because USA deliberately doctored this photo of Condi to make her eyes more menacing. The first photo is the doctored one, and the following one is the original. Read more here: http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/10/26/usa-today-caught-doctoring-photos_________________I am the tides of Time, the dealer of fortunes, the messenger of Death, the bringer of Life, the winds of the Sky, the waves of the Sea. I see all, I know all, and I am God’s servant. Episode III, ‘Psychotic Techno Babble’, is now 60% complete. Fate would stare at the cookie and wonder how he can use it to torture Mara, destroy her country, and get her mad at him. After which he would get frustrated at the tactics Invictus used to debate milk-chocolate cookie use and yell a bit, leaving all parties looking a bit sheepish. Then he would compose a parody making fun of all parties involved, the entire time not eating the Cookie. [...]
ICall:
It is obviously beyond your comprehension that the owners of a multi-billion dollar media company—-y’know, the cats who sign the paychecks—-have editorial control over their products.
And the products would all be the same? That’s pretty clueless even for you.
I’ll try to be civil -
There is a difference between the product and the ownership.
Maybe you think the ownership which you describe as ’ a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military’ whatever that nonsense means
‘cannot control it’s employees enough to control editorial content.’
They probably could but since it’s a business they would distribute different products and it would be unlikely that they would use the same editorial viewpoint for each product or what would be the point of offering different products. Since they have different products intended to generate revenue from different client markets they undoubtedly have differnt divisions with different editorial staff and different operations.
Whatever your indication of their ‘ties to the Bush regime and the military’ I’m assuming they had those same publications prior to 2001 and will have them after 2009 and the products that cater to the military market will undoubtedly publish one POV and USAToday and the many small regionals which I believe are the bulk of Gannetts chain will publish another POV. Whatever your view of Bush or corporate media corporate ownership doesn’t imply generic product content or else there’d be only 1 product to choose from and obviously there’s not.
Are you PRETENDING not to understand what I’m talkin’ ‘bout, ICall, or are you really like that?
Tell ya what—-let’s turn the question around.
Explain to me how a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military, cannot control it’s employees enough to control editorial content.
Explain to me how a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, with ties to the Bush regime and the military, is actually a liberal/socialist consortium dedicated to making Bush look bad.
BTW, I’ve seen some editorials in the Army Times that have dared to offend the dark overlords at Gannett by actually criticizing the President for such issues as troop pay and benefits.
BTW, I admire your moxie ICall.
It’s not easy to argue with an idiot.
You catch them again and again and the left still denies media bias.
I have a number of thoughts.
1. In the old movies the black stereotype was of a black with big eyes and white teeth. When Secretary Rice was nominated for her job a number of lefty outlet’s ran editorial cartoons picking on her being black. Doonesbury also stepped over the line.
2. The comment that this picture was touched up for print sounds good, but I frankly fail to see how a person puts this picture up without noticing. You change it and it’s right there on your screen. I think it’d be easier to change something so it looked good on your screen but didn’t in the paper. Perhaps the wrong picture got posted to the website? But they didn’t put that explanation in their retraction.
3. I would think the media would be very careful and limited about touching up a picture. What do they have to sell besided credibility?