What did this guy hit??

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry

Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

E&P has ZERO credibility, but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers were
endorsing the challenger to FDR.

Again, check their statistical sample.


Matt
--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the
ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

E&P has ZERO credibility...

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
decades ago.

but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?

BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers were
endorsing the challenger to FDR.

That shows how little you know about American history and the
newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
newspapers.

Again, check their statistical sample.

It is not a "statistical sample." It is a census. I assume you know
the difference.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

E&P has ZERO credibility...

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
decades ago.

Like national Enquirer...?


but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?

There's two.

BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers
were
endorsing the challenger to FDR.

That shows how little you know about American history and the
newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
newspapers.

I may not know the newspaper business circa 1930's and 40's, but I do dhave
a fairly good knowledge of American history.

Again, check their statistical sample.

It is not a "statistical sample." It is a census. I assume you know
the difference.

Yes, a sample is a subset. Now, how did E&P do a census of the many
newspapers that long out of business and not archived?

But, even more, you made my point -- thank you.

Now, for all that IRRELEVENT drivel and fodder for "Trivial Pursuit", you
point is...what?

E&P has ZERO credibility...

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
decades ago.

Like national Enquirer...?

A ridiculous comparison and you know it. E&P is read by people in
the newspaper business and they want good info about what's going on.

NE is read by housewives for entertainment.

but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?

There's two.

Two is one more than it takes to refute your implied porposition that
only small town papers are conservative. I could add the Greensburg
Tribune and the Harrisburg Patriot News, but I'm sure you never heard
of them. They are not published in "small towns."

That shows how little you know about American history and the
newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
newspapers.

I may not know the newspaper business circa 1930's and 40's, but I do dhave
a fairly good knowledge of American history.

But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?

But, even more, you made my point

Only in your mind-- which was already made up. Since you know little
about the newspaper business, how would you know that E&P has "zero
credibility"? Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
E&P has ZERO credibility...

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
decades ago.

Like national Enquirer...?

A ridiculous comparison and you know it. E&P is read by people in
the newspaper business and they want good info about what's going on.

Uh huh!


NE is read by housewives for entertainment.

but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?

There's two.

Two is one more than it takes to refute your implied porposition that
only small town papers are conservative.

SHow me where I said "only".

If your can't read

I could add the Greensburg
Tribune and the Harrisburg Patriot News, but I'm sure you never heard
of them. They are not published in "small towns."

That shows how little you know about American history and the
newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
newspapers.

I may not know the newspaper business circa 1930's and 40's, but I do
dhave
a fairly good knowledge of American history.

But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?

But, even more, you made my point

Only in your mind-- which was already made up. Since you know little
about the newspaper business, how would you know that E&P has "zero
credibility"? Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?

And since you still haven't answered my question, instead, typically, ran
off in all different directions, engaged in massive evasions, can't follow a
point, I find it pointless to discuss anything with you.

Make your point or STFU.

You can't.

But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?

You haven't answered this question.

Since you know little about the newspaper business, how would you know that E&P has "zero
credibility"?

You haven't answered this question.

Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?

You haven't answered this question.

Make your point or STFU.

Do you always resort to invective?

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?

You haven't answered this question.

You haven't addressed my FIRST point, much less anything since.

Your point in response to mine about the media (specifically newspapers) was
that the majority of newspapers since 1936 endorsed the republican
presidential candidate.

So my question is: so what?


Since you know little about the newspaper business, how would you know
that E&P has "zero
credibility"?

You haven't answered this question.

As well

Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?

You haven't answered this question.

As well

Make your point or STFU.

Do you always resort to invective?

Only to people in gross denial and evasion.

As typical of the MSM industry, you can't follow even the simpleist line.

Pull your head out of your barfback mindset and come back when you get a
clue.

Discussing anything with an irrational subjectivist is pointless.

Grow up!

But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?

You haven't answered this question.

You haven't addressed my FIRST point, much less anything since.

Your point in response to mine about the media (specifically newspapers) was
that the majority of newspapers since 1936 endorsed the republican
presidential candidate.

So my question is: so what?

I didn't recognize that as a question, despite the punctuation. It
seemed more like a smart alec remark.

The answer is: Matt Whiting said, IIRC, that the media are "liberal."
My question was, and still is, why would "liberal" media urge their
readers to vote for the Republican Presidential candidate?

I still haven't read an answer to that question. Can you answer it?
Will you?

Since you know little about the newspaper business, how would you know
that E&P has "zero
credibility"?

You haven't answered this question.

As well

Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?

You haven't answered this question.

As well

Make your point or STFU.

Do you always resort to invective?

Only to people in gross denial and evasion.

As typical of the MSM industry, you can't follow even the simpleist line.

What is the MSM industry?

Pull your head out of your barfback mindset and come back when you get a
clue.

Discussing anything with an irrational subjectivist is pointless.

Grow up!

My goodness gracious! If you keep sayjng mean things like that, you
might hurt my feelings! (You know I take everything you say very
seriously!)

vince norris