Discussion for article #236859
The idea that a near decade of hate-filled rhetoric makes one blase about calls for the execution of the President is scary.
Besides, if someone wants to blame the President- they need to blame Bush not Obama.
I call bullshit on the explanation. The Daily Item canât be so busy that this just slipped by them.
âBut we should have recognized that the final two metaphorical paragraphs of the Ramadi letter were inescapably an incitement to have the chief executive of our government executed. They should have been deleted,â the editorial read."
No, you effers â you should have notified the proper authorities and let them decide for themselves if they needed to pay the writer a visit, etc. Good Freaking Fuck - what is the matter with people like you??
American journalism: RIP
Not a single sentence in that letter should have been printed.
It says everything about our times that nobody at the paper was alarmed or shocked or anything on first reading the letter. The horrendous has become routine.
âThey should have been deletedâ
No, the entire thing should never have been considered even remotely fit for public consumption. The fact that you consider it ok to print even part of this letter is evidence of journalismâs nonexistence at your paper.
Never fear, though. Once a good white Republican white male is back in the White House, it will no longer be acceptable for such letters to be printed.
Yeah, right. âWeâre really sorry.â Someone needs to go to jail.
Ramadi was a little like Saigon, it was okay as long as Americans were there to prop it up.
icymi - some Veterans reflect on the fall of Ramadi
It would appear that ALL media is failing us: newspapers (especially this one), online (with the exception of this one), television, radio, etc. Theyâre all failing us. As individuals weâre all entitled to our opinion, however, newspapers and all media outlets have a responsibility to ensure their editing process is in place and strong.
In printing this letter, and the pitiful âapologyâ this newspaper showed their lack of commitment to a strong or even existing journalistic standard that is above schoolyard tactics. Letters from lunatics should never be published.
I was going to make this point, but would have added a few âfucksâ and âassholesâ to it.
You did way better and saved me a few keystrokes.
Thanks.
âNearly a decade of provocative and divisive rhetoric may have inured us to language that calls the president of the United States âthe coward-in-chiefâ and the disrespectful use of the presidentâs first nameâŚBut we should have recognized that the final two metaphorical paragraphs of the Ramadi letter were inescapably an incitement to have the chief executive of our government executed. They should have been deleted,â the editorial read.
Who knew? an American newspaper that cannot comprehend English or discern right from wrong.the very essence of the description of the term âragâ
Not thoughtful. Not reasoned. Not informative. And, hopefully, not a reflection of the opinions of the paperâs readers. Just a screaming rant from the git-go. For that alone it should have not been published.
I hope Mrs. Stover had some cookies baked for those nice men from the secret service that stopped by their house.
Every person on the so-called ânew paperâ are brain damaged and should be jailed! for stupity for LIFE!!!
Whatâs in the air in PA??? Sewer Gas???
Exactly. It seems to me that publishing any of the opinion of a possibly violent nut case shows poor judgment, sometimes known as stupidity. They know he was being âmetaphoricâ how?
yes the paper said it should have been more thoroughâŚwink wink
Sounds to me like advertisers are starting to bail. Good.