>>>>>>>Some will reflexively say this is just a partisan post. But I don't see how anyone can read this article with any degree of open mindedness and not be troubled about the prospect of this person becoming President of the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?scp=13&sq=sarah%20palin&st=cse>>>>>>
>>>>>>Once again, the New York Times addresses the scatilogical side of the news.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't follow. Can you elaborate?
>>>>
>>>>You're kidding right? :o)
>>>
>>>Nope. Here is the definition of "scatology" from Merriam-Webster:
>>>
>>>1 : interest in or treatment of obscene matters especially in literature
>>>2 : the biologically oriented study of excrement (as for taxonomic purposes or for the determination of diet)
>>>
>>>Given that, I didn't get why Grady used that word to describe the article. Or the "once again." I thought it was a pretty good piece of reporting given the stone wall that has been erected around Sarah Palin.
>>>
>>>I really get annoyed sometimes when the Times is dismissed as some loony left wing attack dog. When people say that I know they are picking it up from right wing "pundits" and don't even read the damn paper.
>>
>>Why should they read "the damn paper"? Life is short and reading sources are unlimited. Hopefully, you don't suggest pushing your favorite reading down the other people throats?
>
>No, of course not. My point (which I thought was clear) was that people should not trash it or dismiss its reporting without reading it.
Sometimes, it is just inevitable. When some source has earned a reputation, usually it is a willingful process by the source, then this reaction is quite consistent. Please, be honest, there are sources that got dismissed by yourself.
Edward Pikman
Independent Consultant