The Washington Post laments the pig/lipstick debate in conservative circles and the lack of concern of more pressing issues in today's editorial, "What's the pig deal?" Are they serious?
In a word, let me remind them of "silliness:" macaca.
They took one little comment and made a "big deal" out of it.
The same argument they are advancing today could be made about 2006 when the WaPo chose to run endless front page stories about macaca and to interpret what they thought the meaning was and what they thought was the intention of the Senator, ad nauseum.
Excuse me, WaPo ... your bias is showing ... and growing day-by-day.
Puh-leeze. Spare me the faux concern.
4 comments:
Your stupidity is honestly astounding.
These papers wonder why they're loosing subscriptions and this is the reason....The MSM does not even try to thinly veil their contempt for opposing views any longer and that is a dangerous precident to set....great post
Anonymous, it is truly telling to me that so many liberals make such comments under the "anonymous" label. Whatever you think of me, I at least put my name out there and stand behind my opinions. Name calling does nothing to further the debate but, instead, belittles the commenter.
Jody, I agree. Hard copy newspapers such as Gannett (which recently lost 26% revenue and laid off 3% of its work force) and the New York Times and others are imploding and, yet, the continue on the path they have followed. Thank you for your positive words.
Post a Comment