Murdoch's New Low

[2:30]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08262007/news/nationalnews/co_anchoring.htm

I think this represents a new low in peek through the bedroom window "journalism" - the Murdoch-Fox shill-New York Post attacks a separated anchor at a competing station for dating a divorced woman, who happens to work at a station not even in their market, and only finds out by staking out her apartment in Philadelphia. Forgetting the fact that the guy is a totally forgettable pretty boy anchor, the Post's action is scummy and reprehensible...and goes beyond the misleading writing, implying that he's still legally married, and burying his separation.

Someone over on TVSpy had a great idea, if we could ever get the bean counters let us do it. We should stake out Bully Boy Bill and every other Fox anchor, and then go after the Post's editors, and see who they're playing with, and whether they're married.

Then we should see who the multiply married Murdoch and his kids are screwing...other than the quality of journalism worldwide.

These people running the Wall Street Journal? There goes one of the last decently edited newspapers in the country. Thanks, Bancrofts.

[ August 26, 2007, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: 2:30 ]

[Pro]

Don't blame Murdoch...if there wasn't an audience for this kind of stuff, he wouldn't do it.

We - as a whole - get the kind of journalism (if you can call it that) we deserve.

[The Fedora]

I think that Lane is much more attractive...

The swede is just too damn fake looking.

Bah to Page Six. Who gives a crap what they write, if I see this sludge coming from the WSJ just once then I'll be concerned.

[ August 26, 2007, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: The Fedora ]

[cong]

i think you're taking the post too seriously.
http://home.austin.rr.com/electronicfolio/HeadlessBodyPostcard.gifafter all...

[Roy Hobbs]

Isn't it great when two people of similar intellect get together?

[Diplomat]

I saw an item about these two in the online edition of the Inquirer. According to my friends and sources back in Philadelphia, her off-air escapades have been fodder for the local papers and the gossip mill for quite some time. Prior to her short-lived second marriage, she did a series with Dr. Phil in which she spilled her guts, etc.

[2:30]

I saw an item about these two in the online edition of the Inquirer. And to you that justifies the Post and Murdoch's slime? Amazing.

[jrat33]

The real question is... how in the hell is this guy getting so much hot tail? I mean seriously...he's not much to look at! And he's married to a Playboy playmate and now has a pretty hot anchor after him!

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by 2:30:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I saw an item about these two in the online edition of the Inquirer. And to you that justifies the Post and Murdoch's slime? Amazing.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm just saying this is old news.

I've a hunch if this story involved someone you didn't like, you'd be cheering about a newspaper exercising its First Amendment rights. Of course, considering some of the news sources you cite, you've no business calling Rupert Murdoch or the New York Post "slime."

[Produce man]

Maybe they got the idea from NBC.

[Signature on File]

Yea, I was expecting a series on the anchor who doesn't wear underwear.

[2:30]

I've a hunch if this story involved someone you didn't like, you'd be cheering about a newspaper exercising its First Amendment rights It's always hard to tell if your ignorance is feigned. However, let's be clear: I'm not suggesting that the Post is violating a law by what they did (although, in some states, including California, arguably they would be). I'm not even suggesting that it should be illegal.

What I'm saying is that it's disgusting, slimy and for no purpose other than to attack a competing anchor - and that they showed no compunction about using misleading writing to do so.

That some here would defend any part of the article and its authors is astonishing. That they would attempt to deflect the criticism with irrelevant comparisons is not.

[Diplomat]

Given some of the stuff you post, you have no credibility calling anyone else ignorant. Your lack of knowledge about American history, religion, and anywhere outside your narrow little circles in Manhattan, just to name a few things, is colossal.

I don't care about the "competing anchor." I seriously doubt that was a major factor in the decision to run this. "Page Six," since you don't seem to know, is a gossip page. What this guy is doing is of interest to those who read that stuff. I don't read the NY Post. I knew about this from the Inquirer and Daily News. Sure, it's gossipy stuff, but the Philadelphia anchor's off-camera adventures have been gossip column fodder almost since she arrived in 2003.

[The Thrill]

I think they got the idea from Telemundo.

[2:30]

I don't care about the "competing anchor." The list of facts about whihc you "don't care" is, apparently, endless.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by 2:30:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I don't care about the "competing anchor." The list of facts about whihc you "don't care" is, apparently, endless.</font>[/QUOTE]Considering the fiction you post and the slanderous remarks you routinely make, you are the last person to accuse someone of not caring about facts. Even if you are merely posting the opinions of others for some cause, you're still posting false information. I have an idea of which group(s) you're trying to help, though, and it's rather comical.

You're feigning anger with the Post, yet it wasn't the source of the Inquirer's article.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20070826_Inqlings___Power_99_says_see_ya_to_Sylk.h tml

[ August 27, 2007, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Diplomat ]

[2:30]

I have an idea of which group(s) you're trying to help, though, and it's rather comical.
Your "ideas" usually are.

You're feigning anger with the Post, yet it wasn't the source of the Inquirer's article.
I'm not feigning anger at all. I regard this specific, dishonestly written Murdoch/NY Post hit piece as a classic example of the worst of journalism.

And that you say by way of excuse, "Oh, it's Page 6" is astonishing, considering your claimed long memory for journalistic sins. The Post's Page 6 is the place where numerous "columnists" and at least one senior writer have been fired for taking bribes from story subjects.

Perhaps you should take your nose out of Murdoch's ass for long enough to smell external reality.

[Fargin Icehole]

I'd love to be in the same room as these two. Reading it all just doesn't do it.
http://forum.joomla.org/Smileys/joomla/popcorn.gif

[Diplomat]

Once again, 2:30 is lying, distorting and fabricating. But such is the life of those who come on this board to advocate for causes, even if they're doing it for free.

Her silence on the TV station's giving this information to the Inquirer is rather telling. She is blaming everything on Murdoch. She should get her nose out of Little Pinch's ass and get over her Murdoch Derangement Syndrome long enough to face reality.

[2:30]

I'd be willing to bet twink is a Fox or Fox affil employee.

[Diplomat]

You lose, Vivian!