True story. Back in 2008 there were two op-ed pieces on the smae page of the Murdoch owned New York Post.
One said that voting for Obama was a waste of time, because he was a centrist neoliberal who’d only serve up milder versions of GOP programs, so you’d be better off with an actual Republican.
The other screamed that he was a radical Socialist who would destroy America.
Not only is it what Op Eds are for, it’s also extremely common practice to have two contrasting views on the same page to give voice to a variety of different opinions.
Complaining about two Op Eds on the same page with different opinions is like complaining that a dictionary has two definitions of two different words on the same page.
Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.
Here you are, making the exact same point I made, in slightly different terms.
The post is about Schrödinger so me pointing it out was cromulent.
Thanks for both proving my point and making me laugh at you. You’re Schrödinger’s commentor; both an idiot and smart at the same time.
Both opinions agree that you should not vote for Obama, that is the editorial strategy, the different motivations are to capture the whole range of voters.
Nowadays it is even easier to do this, thank to personalized news. They can tell unemployed people that immigrants are stealing all the jobs, while they can tell taxpayers that immigrants are leaving off grants. They can even tell cat lovers that immigrants are eating all the cats.
The idea you are pushing that Op-Eds are a whiteboard for diverse opinions is either innocent or malicious.
Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.
Brace yourself for all the “gotcha!” comments from enlightened centrists that don’t understand the core concept of controlled opposition or propaganda.
True story. Back in 2008 there were two op-ed pieces on the smae page of the Murdoch owned New York Post.
One said that voting for Obama was a waste of time, because he was a centrist neoliberal who’d only serve up milder versions of GOP programs, so you’d be better off with an actual Republican.
The other screamed that he was a radical Socialist who would destroy America.
Same newspaper, same page, no irony
Isn’t this what the opinion page is for?
Not only is it what Op Eds are for, it’s also extremely common practice to have two contrasting views on the same page to give voice to a variety of different opinions.
Complaining about two Op Eds on the same page with different opinions is like complaining that a dictionary has two definitions of two different words on the same page.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an Op Ed?
So, you read what I wrote and concluded that in life I’d only seen one Op-Ed page?
You funny, in a sad way.
Apparently so. You seem surprised that there were two people who had different opinions on the same page in the Op Eds. That’s what Op Eds are.
Again, I ask, are you familiar with the concept of an Op Ed? Or are you just confused that people might have different opinions?
You get funnier and funnier.
Please keep telling me about how much smarter you are than I am.
I’m just letting you prove it yourself.
So, you got nothing?
Too bad, I could always use another laugh.
The rest of us are laughing at you, so you could try that?
Here you are, making the exact same point I made, in slightly different terms.
The post is about Schrödinger so me pointing it out was cromulent.
Thanks for both proving my point and making me laugh at you. You’re Schrödinger’s commentor; both an idiot and smart at the same time.
Both opinions agree that you should not vote for Obama, that is the editorial strategy, the different motivations are to capture the whole range of voters.
Nowadays it is even easier to do this, thank to personalized news. They can tell unemployed people that immigrants are stealing all the jobs, while they can tell taxpayers that immigrants are leaving off grants. They can even tell cat lovers that immigrants are eating all the cats.
The idea you are pushing that Op-Eds are a whiteboard for diverse opinions is either innocent or malicious.
Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.
Brace yourself for all the “gotcha!” comments from enlightened centrists that don’t understand the core concept of controlled opposition or propaganda.
People nitpicking on the internet?
Un-possible!
Theres nitpicking, and theres just disingenuous horse shit from centrists telling you that ummm actually both sides are the same.
Don’t get me started…