Log in  |  Search

‘Post’ Slam Means Edwize Doing Good

A trashing by the New York Post is a badge of honor. I feel like Wallis Warfield Simpson. And thanks for the plug, guys. The hits keep rolling in.

Leo handled the Post’s silly objection to our disclaimer quite well. Here I deal with young master Sager’s reading-retention deficit. Note how his editorial made a hash of what was actually written here about Wal-Mart. Was anybody really “comparing Wal-Mart executives to ‘war criminals.’ ” What was said was that, after enumerating the many sordid sins of this corporate bandit, it was fair to say that even war criminals had fewer charges to answer for. If that’s a comparison, then Saddam Hussein and Groucho Marx were twinned for sporting facial hair. Or maybe the Post is on to something. Maybe Wal-Mart execs ARE class-war criminals, in which case the Justice Department can declare the giant retailer’s poorly treated employees a protected class. Interesting thought.

The Post repeatedly accuses city unions of pursuing a narrow self interest. How could a union with a delimited membership ever speak for the common good, it assumes? How could it be trusted to meet public needs when its first duty presumably is to its own? That argument is cynical and wrong. It also cuts both ways. What is more self interested than for the poorest-circulated of the big New York dailies to hug the far-right end of the political spectrum, trying to create a niche readership by preying on people’s fears and picking at scabs–all to boost circulation and attract advertisers. Should I say that when you read a Post editorial, you’re not getting a point of view, you’re seeing an actor adopting a pose and reading for a part? The Post editorial scribblers shouldn’t throw stones.

Print

7 Comments:

  • 1 InstitutionalMemory
    · Aug 25, 2005 at 5:02 pm

    Being trashed by the Post is like making Nixon’s “enemies list.” Congratulations are in order!

  • 2 redhog
    · Aug 25, 2005 at 5:09 pm

    The New York Post is not a good-faith adversary. It is a knee-jerk antagonist of unions, particularly of teachers. Except to get rhetorical practice, there’s nothing to be gained by debating the Post on the merits of issues. They will never print any op-ed piece that references unions in even a neutral way. Nor will they do that even in a “straight” news story.
    Most alarming is how they will outright lie, or else wilfully tell only a portion of the total truth so that the effect is the same as a lie anyway.Terrifying is the implications for all persons in a free society, of a press controlled by the government,or the de facto government of corporate cronies and masters.

  • 3 curious2
    · Aug 25, 2005 at 8:31 pm

    I agree that the Post’s objection to the disclaimer on this site seems silly.

    With respect to the war criminals reference, I do think the author of the posting in question was guilty of an excessively sensational comparison. It seems to me sometimes that the writers on this blog write with a tone of extreme anger that weakens their message.

  • 4 eumenides
    · Aug 25, 2005 at 9:18 pm

    You may be right that the writers on this new blog err on the side of the frisky, though given other blogs I’ve visited this bunch seem restrained. And the Post editorial did distort the blog posting; no one called Wal-Mart’s managers war criminals. But if even putting the words “Wal-Mart” and “war criminal” in the same sentence is too close for comfort, how would you characterize the employment practices of Wal-Mart? To me, they look like the nasty machinations of the bad guy that Lionel Barrymore played in the old Jimmy Stewart Christmas movie, at least. Didn’t you cheer when the greedy banker lost? Shouldn’t we be booing Wal-Mart now?

  • 5 TGO
    · Aug 31, 2005 at 1:53 pm

    Not one teacher/union official has to yet to point out the grammatical mistake in this post’s headline!

    If you can not catch a mistake after one week, how can you teach grammar to the children?

    This is an FYI for all the teachers who fail to see the grammar error. It should say, “‘Post’ Slam Means Edwize Doing Well.”

  • 6 Cassandra
    · Aug 31, 2005 at 4:15 pm

    The New York Post is to journalism as a streetwalker is to romance.

  • 7 eumenides
    · Aug 31, 2005 at 5:44 pm

    TGO

    The use of “good” in the headline is a colloquialism, as in “lookin’ good.” As such it is proper usage. Changing that to “looking well” distorts the meaning. Also, saying Edwize is “doing good,” esp. after a slam from the Post, means it’s doing god’s work. As you know from reading the business pages, doing “good” and doing “well” are two different things. Both are grammatical.
    -E-