Write Review
1,981,935 Total Reviews 3,843 New Reviews
11,880 Users Online

Politics and Religion

OOPSIE ! ! ! N.Y. Post Puts Gephardt on Kerry Ticket
AllHailTheBaloneySandwich 10978 reads
posted

N.Y. Post Puts Gephardt on Kerry Ticket
==========================================
Jul 6, 8:07 PM EDT
 
NEW YORK (AP) -- Dewey defeats ... Gephardt? The New York Post, in a front-page gaffe reminiscent of the 1948 headline wrongly announcing President Truman's defeat, proclaimed Tuesday that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would select Rep. Dick Gephardt as his running mate.

"KERRY'S CHOICE," read the headline over the Page One "exclusive" story. "Dem picks Gephardt as VP candidate." The story, which ran without a byline, was accompanied by a file photo of the Missouri congressman and the Massachusetts senator.

But then Kerry announced his real choice Tuesday morning: North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Post editor in chief Col Allan said in a statement that he made the decision to go with the Gephardt story based on information that turned out to be inaccurate. He did not elaborate.

"We unreservedly apologize to our readers for the mistake," Allan said.

The paper's Web site replaced the Gephardt report with a story by The Associated Press on Kerry's actual choice.

Last October, after the New York Yankees defeated the Boston Red Sox in the American League playoffs, the Post mistakenly ran an editorial bemoaning the home team's loss. Allan blamed that foul-up on a simple production error.

It was 1948 when Chicago Daily Tribune ran its "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" headline. Incumbent Truman wound up beating Dewey, the Republican New York governor who was considered a heavy favorite.

Kerry's selection - the correct one - appeared to be reported first by Andrea Mitchell on NBC's "Today" show at 7:30 a.m. Tuesday.


-- Modified on 7/6/2004 5:31:20 PM

Related Link: THIS IS THE RAG (NY POST) SOME OF YOU REPUKE"S TRUST ?

sdstud10963 reads



-- Modified on 7/7/2004 12:19:17 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC7743 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud10642 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC11235 reads

I read the Post for entertainment, and what it did yesterday is part of that.  Actually, I only found out about that through this board, as I was so busy that I only had time to read the Journal (which I subscribe to) and the NY Times on the internet.  I have a life, which seems to be more than you can say given the incredible number of posts coming from you on this board.  As it turns out, I get most of the news from the internet (AP, Reuters, NY Times, etc), and when I'm not around a computer, TV and/or radio.  I most certainly don't get any news from the little weekly you write for!

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud10497 reads

And frankly, you very well might be reading my stuff online, given the places you say you subscribe to.

Oh, and my apologies if I'm more prolific and efficient at my job than you - I am afraid that it's just a function of our relative capabilities.  FYI, I spend perhaps an hour a day here, max.

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC11117 reads

The WSJ is the only news media I SUBSCRIBE to, and thus I don't read it online.  We've already established that you don't write for the NY Times.  So now I'm supposed to believe that you write for either the AP or Reuters.  What's next, the LA Times?  OK, let's see.  You took "a hiatus from a career in the computer industry that paid (you) several hundred thousand dollars annually in base salary" so that you could be "in a position that had the opportunity to make a difference in the election by influencing a significant portion of the electorate."  Whew!  You traded a job paying a ton of money for a journalist's salary?  I'll let others judge the wisdom of that one!  What really brings a grin to my face, however, is the thought of you influencing a "SIGNIFICANT PORTION" of the electorate.  A bit grandiose, don't you think?  With all due respect, you can't even influence me, and I'm far from being a "significant portion" of the electorate.  Forgive the sarcasm, sdstud, but you're preaching to the choir on this board, most of whom by now are covering their eyes (ears) with their hands.

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud9316 reads

If you read the Times on-line, you may well be one of my influencees.

And, BTW, I am not the slightest bit concerned to influence the few folks who post on this board.  I'm using this board to help develop the most effective message points for the broader audience.  Many of the ideas I try out here will not fly nationally, but that's to be expected.  That's WHY I am floating them here first.

And, if you are determining my rationality by whether I acted in my own finacial interest with my recent career move, you are surely using the wrong criteria.  I know damn well that I have walked away from at least $100K over the next 5 months or so.

Pat Tillman walked away from many MILLIONS, and a life of prosperity and comfort, to do his patriotic duty to his nation.  And he gave away his life in the process.  I haven't heard you criticize him (may he rest in peace) for irrationality in his taking that action.  What I am doing certainly cannot compare to that, but it is no LESS rational, only far less courageous on my part.

I recognize that I am taking a gamble, but it's certainly one that I can financially afford to take.  This election will be very closely contested.  And if I can do my small bit to prevent Bush and Cheney from being re-elected, I will consider my patriotic duty to have been fulfilled.

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC8135 reads

you don't write for the NY Times (you acknowledged that earlier for all intents and purposes), and two, whatever you do with your life is your own business.  I could care less.

But your logic fails you again.  What makes you think that, because I read the Times online, I therefore must be influenced by it?  If I were to be influenced by everything I read, I would be a jumble of confusion.  There can be no question that certain information gleamed from the NY Times and other news media are input into my thinking, but when it comes to editorial content, I only read Friedman, Brooks and (sometimes) Safire from the Times.  Now, are you ready to claim that YOU are one of these three men?

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud10572 reads

I never said I was a writer, although I might be.  I might be an editor.  I might be a researcher.  I will admit, I'm neither Brooks, Safire, nor Friedman.  But I will not eliminate the possibility that my role does give me an opportunity to influence what's in their columns - although, admittedly, I've had no effect on Brooks' recent work, such as his screed against Michael Moore.  

However, Safire might be another story - Did you see his recent column praising the Supreme Court's insistence on Due Process for the enemy combatants?  It sure seems to me that I might have had some influence on the man, as I've been taking the same position for some time now - quite possibly, he's been listening.

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC6543 reads

Hey, two people can come to the same conclusion on any given topic.  Indeed, many people can reach the same conclusion without any form of communication between them.  "But I will not eliminate the possibility that my role does give me an opportunity to influence what's in their columns."  Well, anything's possible, but I would say that the odds are OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of you having ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NO INFLUENCE on these writers whatsoever.  After all, writing for a local weekly limits your scope!

-- Modified on 7/10/2004 5:19:57 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud9339 reads

And, as I've said before, I don't write for a local weekly, so that argument is spurrious.

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC8179 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC8642 reads

THE ELECTORATE."  Once again, the laugh of the day!

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC12615 reads

now!  By the time I get back, this thread will be on page 3, and it will certainly not be worth the time responding to whatever drivel you post next.  But it was interesting to see that you are using this board as a testing ground in order to influence a "broader audience," which you have previously stated to be a "SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE ELECTORATE."  Forgive me, sdstud, but I'm still chuckling over that one!

ReplyQuoteReport
CYNIC10493 reads

BECAUSE (I would like to think) I was rather prolific and efficient at my job.  Furthermore, my retirement income is rather comfortable, enabling me to do quite a bit of traveling, in addition to quite a few other things.  Finally, unlike you, I spend maybe 15 minutes to a half hour on this board at a time (not every day certainly), most of which seems to be spent goading you!

-- Modified on 7/7/2004 8:33:20 PM

-- Modified on 7/7/2004 8:36:30 PM

-- Modified on 7/7/2004 8:43:22 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
bribite9385 reads

CBS News now has called the Florida primary for Gore!  lol

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud11726 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
bribite11433 reads

for your mundane subject lines!  

Somebody please, bump sdstud, he's a scratched record.  (that would be for those of you who remember life before the CD)

ReplyQuoteReport
sdstud7974 reads

You might hurt yourself, and it also might be one reason that you need Viagra to get it up.

-- Modified on 7/9/2004 9:51:46 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
Number 69948 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Tusayan10224 reads

More quality journalism from the same people who brought you Fox "News."

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!