Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Bobdude161, Jul 27, 2008.
Yes we can, Obamessiah! YES WE CAN!
As soon as I saw the Fox News Channel and Hannity and Colmes logos, I knew I was in store for something incredibly stupid. I was right.
When will Americans learn that the newspaper is called The Times and not The London Times or The Times of London. You'd think that Fox News would know better, with them being owned by the same person.
P.S. I read Mr. Baker's rather poor attempt at humour yesterday.
BoyBach: I think they call it "The Times of London" because we have our own Times--The New York Times. Seems reasonable to me to ensure nobody gets confused.
Probably around the time the Brits realize the world doesn't revolve around their newspaper. In the video, the narrator says, "...for he saw it all on CNN, the BBC, and in the pages of The New York Times."
Apart from the fact it actually does.
***** video, though. Not funny.
One paper is called 'The New York Times' and another is called 'The Times'. It's not difficult. There's no excuse for a news organisation to get this simple fact wrong, unless this is an acceptable standard for journalism now?
They have standards in journalism!!! When did this happen!!!
Sometime in the eighteenth century I believe!
I was raised in the US. At no point do I recall The Times being relevant as compared to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The Washington Post, etc.
Can you point out in the video where it called The New York Times The Times? Actually can you point out in the video where The Times is mentioned at all?
I must have been getting confused with moral standards
The very first second.
Mr. Baker writes for them.
Gotcha. Point conceded.
I apologise that I 'kept on', but getting quotes and sources correct is fundamental to journalism - good and bad.
Not trying to be contrary... but how would you propose the US press refer to "The Times" (based in London) in order to avoid confusion with the "New York Times?" Just calling each by their proper name does not avoid the confusion in the US public's mind. If it is just referred to as "the Times" here in the States, the natural assumption would be the NY Times. How would you distinguish them?
Woof, Woof - Dawg
Boy, this is terrible... I kept waiting for some nice jibe, but nothing. This isn't satire, it's just... dumb.
Oh please- anyone wondering where the OP is? Oh wait- laughing at the uproar he's supposedly caused. This is stupid and ridiculous BS. Let's pay it no mind. This is the kind of BS neocons love.
What you fail to consider is that in the US, we call The New York Times The Times for short.
Before going on your next tirade, I suggest thinking about cultural factors at work.
Gerard Baker was reading aloud his column originally printed in 'The Times', so the Fox News Channel should have correctly attributed the piece to 'The Times' and not some fictional newspaper called 'The Times of London'. It's not cultural, it's factual.
(Tirade over! )
The only kind of uproar I caused was how to correctly label 'The Times'. As for being called a neocon, that's being prejudice. How do you know who I am? I laugh at videos making fun of conservatives. Does that make me a liberal?
If you should know, I'm libertarian and I don't like much of the two candidates. Thank you, good night.
EDIT: And if me making fun of Obama has offended you, I'm sorry.
Awe, don't let Lee get to you... he's harmless
Woof, Woof - Dawg
Making fun of people is just fine. Posting inane garbage is just...well inane. It would be no more funny if it were McCain.
In all fairness, this was MUCH funnier, when it was just words, and you could skip over the parts that got weighed down and belabored. Listening to the whole thing with innocuous video clips wasn't half as funny as I thought it would be (in fact, my smile dissappeared about 10-15 seconds into it). It's like a bad version of a Daily Show gag.
The most bothersome aspect of this, were all the people trying to character-assassinate Obama supporters in comment sections of the original article (as if they simply don't "get it" or that many of them didn't think it funny... at first). After a while, I thought referring to Obama as "the child" didn't quite hold up, and started to become offensive. Even were this really writing about the Christ figure, if someone gets older, it doesn't make since to keep calling him "the child" when he's over 40 years old, especially when you've grounded yourself in the past tense and not the future tense for the entirety of the article. Kind of F-d up.