New Bushism


Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2006

First of all, I just want to point out the title of this article. I am well aware that the New York Post is a sensationalist tabloid rag, but this title is really overtly biased, even for them. Not only that, but it's a pretty infantile sentence.

Moving on, the reason I posted this here is because I noticed a funny quote from George Bush today—the one under the photo of Bush at the above link. The Post actually printed the caption a little out of context, but it retains more or less the same attitude in any case.

Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis…If I were Hezbollah, I'd be claiming victory.

That sounds like pretty standard Bush M.O. Anyone else remember "Mission Accomplished"?
ONe of those cases where I say, yet again, 'oh Rupert'. Not a very well written article lol.
It isn't and it amazes me that Bush continues to needle that region. Haven't there been enough deaths. He keeps it up they will fight again just to see who wins.
I wouldn't call the NYP that, but it is a horrible title to use.
As a person who lives in New York and reads the Post at least a couple times a week, I would definitely call that newspaper a sensationalist tabloid rag...and much worse. I only buy it because it has a bunch of good puzzles, but I also take the time to look through it and pick out things like this article. My real interest is in observing the specific things the Post does in its presentation of the news that sets it apart from other papers.

I've noticed that the Post is the only paper of the major three in New York City (the other two being the Times and the Daily News) that regularly uses words like fiend, thug, and evil, not only in headlines but within news items. Having studied journalism for some time, I am pretty aware of the kind of language that is not acceptable to use in news reporting; the Post uses this kind of language every day of the week. I've got many more specific examples, but I'm not up to drudging up my clippings at the moment.

It also liberally applies the label of terrorist to any group or individual that has been called such by the government. It is fairly well-established that that word is a term of judgment and does not belong in a purportedly objective news story (unless, of course, a person has actually been convicted of terrorism through legitimate proceedings in a legitimate court of law). It is the same principle that governs not referring to people as criminals who have merely been arrested and/or formally accused.

And my last bit of evidence of the Post's sensationalist-tabloid-raggishness is its selection of stories, especially front-page stories. In the past week, while scores of people were being slaughtered and one country was literally invading another under the nose of the world, the Post used its front page to report on a baseball player's sordid sex life for three days, consistently including risque pictures of his Playboy model wife in string bikinis and the like.

That paper is barely fit for my dog to piss on.
A journalist friend of mine, who wrote for the Post years ago, used to laugh about how the front page headline was derived. In those days, it had to scan the same as 'Camptown races, sing this song".

My favorite was the 3 Mile Island headline. NUKE CLOUD NEARS NEW YORK!
I'm going to have to agree with the masses on this one in terms of the NYP. I'm also going to disagree that it's "barely fit for my dog to piss on" because it can adequately keep the piss from making it to the floor. ;)
It can also be excellent for teaching what bias looks like in a medium that is supposed to maintain some level of objectivity.

NYP = tabloid