From what I can gather it seems “offensive to people” was ONE person complaining 
1 Like
Yeah, they kept telling everyone how “unpopular” she was, so they went with the more widely despised Trump!
There really are different rules for Hillary, and every day it is proven true again. An historic day in American history, but “non-partisan” types like Andrea Mitchell lead with her “concern” over Hillary’s “unpopularity”, yet Trump and crying Bernbots are all over the front pages! I’ll say it’s rigged!
4 Likes
That angry black lady Bernie dead-ender actually said unchallenged on MSNBC that she “really didn’t know much about Hillary” on live tv! I guess she couldn’t find much in the newspapers!
3 Likes
Oh great, another story based entirely on what people say on twitter. One is apparently under the impression that Clinton was elected president last night. One is drawing comparisons to Obama being on front pages after the primaries ended in June 2008, while the appropriate comparison would be to the front pages the day after the roll call at the 2008 convention (and if you’re bothering to go back and find front pages from 2008, why not show the ones from the convention? perhaps because she found Obama wasn’t on the front page then and it ruined her thesis). And I get the distinct impression that they think Bill’s picture was used because as her husband he’s being substituted for her, not because, you know, he gave the main speech last night.
To borrow from Colbert, last night was “technically historic”, but we knew she actually clinched the nomination six weeks ago. If this was THE historic moment when the glass ceiling was broken, why did Hillary not even bother to show up in person? If it was that important to get Clinton on the front page she should have made an appearance earlier than 11:30 and for more than 30 seconds. And the reason she didn’t is that the glass ceiling was already broken, on June 7, not July 26.
There was an obvious logistical reason that likely drove that editorial
choice: Hillary Clinton didn’t appear in person last night in
Philadelphia.
…
That is a bullshit excuse Katherine. You know in your heart it is.
The 1st woman nominated by a major political party doesn’t rate above a speech (wonderful as it was and I take nothing from Bill) by her husband?
WTF?
Are they gonna put her headline when she *wins the election on page two??
I mean goddam…what does Hillary need to do?
Trump holds a “press conference” and it gets top billing and is covered wall to wall breathlessly. But Clinton GETS NOMINATED BY ACCLIMATION and it’s …meh. so what.
Really…it’s depressing
…
OK, how about Trump congratulating her on her accomplishment…would that rate enough, considering He is involved in the story?
11 Likes
And even the Times is behind the times…
2 Likes
Don’t worry, when there’s a Latino candidate for president, they’ll feature prominenty.
An Asian candidate.
Another black candidiate.
As long as they’re men.
5 Likes
Look, it’s not like they couldn’t prepare the front page by 9:00PM ahead of the print run with a frigging picture of the “presumed” nominee. It’s not like the result was in doubt.
Jeebus on a stick.
4 Likes
I suggest that in order to avoid this very common confusion, everybody should use the original German term from where the acronym “Flak” is derived
Fliegerabwehrkanone - Flieger abwehr kanone → Flak
Freundliche Grüße,
Gruppenführer Mondfledermaus
Clearly, baseball scores of any game any time are just as important as the first woman ever to receive the presidential nomination of a major party. How silly of us not to understand that.
And, of course, the logistics of producing newspapers make it so very difficult to find and use photographs of a prominent and widely-photographed woman who just made history. Better to go with a picture of her husband (much like they have always shown pictures of the woman who will be first lady under the headline announcing her husband’s nomination instead of photos of the gentleman himself).
And your last sentence left out “…your pretty little heads” after the first two words. You should try to make sure your condescension isn’t missed by any of the silly women dithering about something like a silly little picture when there are so many things more important to you.
4 Likes
Ummm
Full pic you were saying…
2 Likes
Are you f^cking kidding me?
We elected a lesbian, her honor Annise Parker, as mayor.
And our city’s newspaper (Houston Chronicle) can’t recognize this bit of history as a monumental event?
Unbelievable.
jw1
4 Likes
Oops. My bad.
1 Like
The San Jose Mercury News frontpage had a pic showing a sea of Hillary signs on the campaign floor. The p5 continuation showed a view of Hillary on the big monitor from the back of the hall. Of course, on the west coast they had 3 more hours .
I’m sorry to say, though, that they gave Bernie dissenters equal coverage on the front and interior pages. I understand that CA is providing a large number of those dissenters. But nominating a woman seems like a bigger story to me.
5 Likes
The HRC campaign and press are both downplaying the historic nature of her nomination. The video below was scheduled to be introduced at the DNC by Meryl Streep but was yanked at the last minute.
My own pet theory is that the newspapers are suffering under a twisted “fairness” ideology that promotes false equivalence. In the name of “fairness,” a newsworthy element of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign (that she is the first female nominee) is downplayed for fear that this groundbreaking historical development gives her “undue” advantage in the race. This same fear hamstrings some news reporters from pointing out obvious falsehoods in Mr. Trump’s speeches and twitter broadcasts; many claim that by pointing out lies, inaccuracies and racial insults, the news outlets are “bending” the race to the candidate who tries to tell the truth, or is a little less “false,” or resists racially charged remarks. Hence, the reliance on editorial pages to speak the obvious: that Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is historic and that Mr. Trump is a race-baiting populist and the worst prevaricator who has ever run for the office.
2 Likes
Oh. Your. God.
My local paper, the “Star Tribune” put her nomination on page 4a.
They also only run stories about “CHAOS at the Convention” and feature front-page articles interviewing the “Bernie-or-Bust” dead-enders at the convention.
That’s some NEUTRAL REPORTING for you.
NOTE; The Star-Trib was once an excellent independent paper. Now it is nothing more than a thin reprint of the Washington Post.The St. Paul Pioneer Press is even more depressing and a shadow of it’s former self, they are just a thin reprint of the Washington TIMES.
As the Orange Buffoon would say; SAD!
1 Like
That’s all it takes. Just like when, say, Cokie Roberts or Thomas Friedman think something and say it to someone else then they can say “some people say” when they report it. Donald Trump uses the technique every time he wants to spread a lie about anyone – “Some people are saying…”
2 Likes
As I said, the apt comparison would be to the convention in August 2008. Was Obama on the front page the day after the roll call vote when he didn’t give a speech that night? And was Clinton on the front page of June 8, 2016, which is the corresponding date to the 2008 article you’ve cited? Perhaps he was in 2008 and she wasn’t back in June, I don’t know. I’m not saying sexism is inconceivable here, I’m just saying that when people make arguments based on false comparisons, I tend to view them a bit skeptically.
1 Like
And then I come to TPM this morning and there are 11 (ELEVEN!!!) pictures of Donald J Trump and only 1 small picture of Hillary on their front page. Really, a story about Trump being a child and making lewd comments about Bill Clinton is more important at this moment than talking about Hillary’s historic nomination? Sometimes you really suck, TPM. Sorry, but its true.
7 Likes