Well, that might be a bit of a stretch but not really given the fact that the Murdoch-owned and historically conservative newspaper THE NEW YORK POST has come out in favor of Barack Obama...that is very significant on many levels indeed...
The troubling part is that there is a discrepancy between that which is reported on the Yahoo! News page and that which actually appears on the NY Post website...
It appears as though there's a bit of shadowy editing going on...
Let me show you what I'm talking about...
Here's a link to the Yahoo! News page that contains the story about the Post endorsement of Obama: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080131/ts_alt_afp/usvotedemocratsendorsement_080131170710
I would direct your attention to the following excerpted paragraph from the Yahoo! News story:
"For all his charisma and his eloquence, (Obama) sorely lacks seasoning. And on national security, his worldview is beyond naive -- blithely unware that America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.
For the sake of a comparison metric I now give you the link to the actual NY Post editorial page: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm
And now the very paragraph that is quoted by Yahoo! News:
For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.
Did you notice something missing?
Where did the part about "blithely unware" go in the NY Post article?
Was it never included in the original story?
Did it get edited out of the NY Post story after the fact?
Is it merely a figment of Yahoo! News' imagination (in conjunction with the true source which in this case is AFP, Agence France Presse)?
This is a mystery to me...
I feel like this is a journalistic version of the age-old question about the chicken or the egg...
Maybe someone thought it was too critical to include the term "blithely unware" so they removed it? But that doesn't seem likely given the fact that the Post and its backers are conservatives so they wouldn't shy away from criticism of a Democrat...
By the way, in case you were not aware, the word "unware" is a real word...it is another spelling/usage of the word "unaware."
I Just didn't want you to think that I was slipping or anything like that :-)
Anyway peace out my homies...
Happy February 1st...by the way isn't tomorrow supposed to be Groundhog's Day?
I wonder what the little bugger is going to say...oh the mysterious randomness of this life.
Where did the part about "blithely unware" go in the NY Post article?
Was it never included in the original story?
Did it get edited out of the NY Post story after the fact?
Is it merely a figment of Yahoo! News' imagination (in conjunction with the true source which in this case is AFP, Agence France Presse)?
This is a mystery to me...
I feel like this is a journalistic version of the age-old question about the chicken or the egg...
Maybe someone thought it was too critical to include the term "blithely unware" so they removed it? But that doesn't seem likely given the fact that the Post and its backers are conservatives so they wouldn't shy away from criticism of a Democrat...
By the way, in case you were not aware, the word "unware" is a real word...it is another spelling/usage of the word "unaware."
I Just didn't want you to think that I was slipping or anything like that :-)
Anyway peace out my homies...
Happy February 1st...by the way isn't tomorrow supposed to be Groundhog's Day?
I wonder what the little bugger is going to say...oh the mysterious randomness of this life.
No comments:
Post a Comment