posted
My mother passed along a funny email forward I hadn't seen before. I thought I'd share. (Nobody hurt me, please.)
quote:The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country - if they could find the time, and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.
The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country, or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions: if the leaders are handicapped, minority, feminist, atheist, dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided, of course, that they are not conservatives.
The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
And, finally, the country IS run by someone who cannot read any newspapers at all.
posted
Adam says it's funny because it's true. Though I don't think he does the crossword puzzles at work.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's funny! It's insulting practically every political group except Wall Street Journal readers about running the country...why not the guy who actually is? I don't see anything partisan in the post.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it was partisan. I said it was a cheap and predictable potshot. You don't have to be a Democrat to call Bush stupid, and you don't have to be a Republican to be sick of the Bush-is-dumb jokes.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surely the Bush-is-dumb jokes aren't any older than the "X newspaper caters to X demographic" jokes?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Surely the Bush-is-dumb jokes aren't any older than the "X newspaper caters to X demographic" jokes?
Maybe not, but they're more common. Any joke gets old when you hear a version of it approximately every day for seven years.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not even going to dignify that by getting into an argument about it. This thread is not the place to discuss it. Not that I'll participate if a new thread is made for it, because I find the whole thing far too tiresome.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the Los Angeles Daily News-- the reporting and editing were better in the Times, but it's about 12 times more expensive and the delivery person sucked. Really sucked. Couldn't get it on our doorstep (which we have NEVER had a problem with from the Daily News) and left it in the driveway, and when the delivery guy was sick for a weekend we just didn't get our paper. The customer service people didn't seem to care, and were very rude when we called to tell them we were switching back to the Daily News (and the Daily News not only gave us 40% off, and their REGULAR daily rate was cheaper than the Times' weekend rate, but they also gave us an Entertainment Book for switching back-- which basically pays for the paper for the year, since it has coupons for money off at the grocery store each month.)
So in our case, people who read the L.A. Daily News are people who would read the Times if they weren't such buttlickers.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Surely the Bush-is-dumb jokes aren't any older than the "X newspaper caters to X demographic" jokes? " I don't know if they are as old as the "Don't call me Shirley" jokes?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Surely the Bush-is-dumb jokes aren't any older than the "X newspaper caters to X demographic" jokes?
I've started rereading the Mad Magazines of my younger days, and aside from making MUCH more sense, I was quite interested that they portray Bill Clinton to be just as stupid as George W. Bush.
I think this country has been calling its presidents dumb and worse since its inception.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part about the Chronicle was spot on though.
Oh, and I get my news from Fark. (too bad it's down right now...)
I'll be really happy when the last newspaper dies and we can just get all our news from the net. Not only will they have to move their self-published blogs onto their own websites, but they can stop calling me and trying to get me to pay them to let me read it.
Anything they have to say can be found on the internet for free. We don't need them for the AP feed and the average jatraquero has a better considered opinion than most of their opinion writers anyway.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Time and Newsweek are written by people who think the New York Times runs the country, and read by people who have a choice between that and "Highlights" in the waiting room.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I read the Los Angeles Daily News-- the reporting and editing were better in the Times, but it's about 12 times more expensive and the delivery person sucked. Really sucked. Couldn't get it on our doorstep (which we have NEVER had a problem with from the Daily News) and left it in the driveway, and when the delivery guy was sick for a weekend we just didn't get our paper. The customer service people didn't seem to care, and were very rude when we called to tell them we were switching back to the Daily News (and the Daily News not only gave us 40% off, and their REGULAR daily rate was cheaper than the Times' weekend rate, but they also gave us an Entertainment Book for switching back-- which basically pays for the paper for the year, since it has coupons for money off at the grocery store each month.)
So in our case, people who read the L.A. Daily News are people who would read the Times if they weren't such buttlickers.
What's so wrong with papers in the driveway rather than the doorstep?
(I get why the other stuff sucked!)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I read the Los Angeles Daily News-- the reporting and editing were better in the Times, but it's about 12 times more expensive and the delivery person sucked. Really sucked. Couldn't get it on our doorstep (which we have NEVER had a problem with from the Daily News) and left it in the driveway, and when the delivery guy was sick for a weekend we just didn't get our paper. The customer service people didn't seem to care, and were very rude when we called to tell them we were switching back to the Daily News (and the Daily News not only gave us 40% off, and their REGULAR daily rate was cheaper than the Times' weekend rate, but they also gave us an Entertainment Book for switching back-- which basically pays for the paper for the year, since it has coupons for money off at the grocery store each month.)
So in our case, people who read the L.A. Daily News are people who would read the Times if they weren't such buttlickers.
What's so wrong with papers in the driveway rather than the doorstep?
(I get why the other stuff sucked!)
Well, in our case, we live in an apartment complex. "In the driveway" is equivalent to "on the street"-- the paper gets driven on, repeatedly, if it is there, and is also liable to get stolen. "On the doorstep" to us means "somewhere on the raised area in front of the apartment that is not the street." It's kind of like "in the yard" vs. "on the street." And we asked them to do this for FIVE MONTHS, every week we asked them, three papers a week, and we got exactly 10 papers delivered the right way, the rest were in the driveway, which is basically the street.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Salt Lake Tribune is run and read by people who wish they were in New York, but don't actually want to live there.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
