Sumner Redstone has passed away
Newsweek is bad, but the Kamala Harris birther op-ed, the circumstances around it and the editorial defense of it were really bad.
The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.
Newsweek is a rag nowadays, but it’s good to see so many of the writers were outraged. I feel for them writing for that trash.
How far it has fallen. It was once the Pepsi to Time’s Coke.
Well, it was basically gone, the Daily Beast just bought the name. It’s not like they kept Jon Meachum or any of the staff. So when people say “Newsweek” now, that currently just means Daily Beast.
antlers
2708
This had been true the Daily Beast sold it to a Korean evangelical who put in some right-wing types. It’s in the midst of a transition from a Daily Beast-ish sort of site to a Washington Times sort of site.
ShivaX
2709
First: Apparently they have editors, but they don’t have any real power to like… edit things.
Second: Why is Factcheck.org featuring posts and opinions in the first place, much less ones they’ve fact checked as false?
WaPo: The Democrats are in disarray!
… OK, not now, but later.
Maybe. Possibly. It could happen.
Democrats head to convention united against Trump, but expecting conflict once the election is over
(95% of the actual article is about the Dems being united, so the “They’re gonna fall apart any minute now” angle that’s lightly sprinkled in is either editorial tinkering or a reporter with an axe to grind.)
Nancy with some choice shade:
The inevitable horse race. By hook or by crook.
The Washington Examiner (which is totally in the tank for Trump) spins the above battleground poll thusly in its headline: “Trump nearly tied with Biden in 15 battleground states.”
Just saw this on /r politics (sorted by new) and thought some clown had altered the headline.
I guess the NY Times headline writers are now moonlighting for Politico. There was nothing too bad in the actual article, but bizarre was such an inappropriate word. Virtual would have been a lazy but better adjective to use.
Yeah, why use “bizarre” ? (To drive page views of course.) But even the piece itself can’t help trotting out the dems in disarray trope (who are these “many Democrats”? Maybe it’s true but no sources cited at all.)
Instead of being seen as a great opportunity, many Democrats approached the convention as a fraught exercise studded with landmines to be avoided or diffused. Maybe gathering all the elements of the unwieldy and factionalized Democratic Party together for a week, even virtually, would just create unnecessary headaches for the frontrunner.
Link to original tweet from HoaxEye (who by the way is a worthy follow)
