The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
thanks for the link and a peek at what $8.2M gets! The kitchen seemed to me a tad too commercial — but that powder room has got to go! Would be nervous just walking into the wild decor. But I truly doubt that I would get an invite.
mtierney said:
But I truly doubt that I would get an invite.
that's what happens when you lie about someone for years.
mtierney said:
thanks for the link and a peek at what $8.2M gets! The kitchen seemed to me a tad too commercial — but that powder room has got to go! Would be nervous just walking into the wild decor. But I truly doubt that I would get an invite.
So Obama is the black chicken on the right, and Trump the red chicken on the left. Is that your point?
After reading today’s headline news story, guess the source. Especially interested the opinions of those who get their news by scanning headlines.
The Tabloid Myths of Jennifer Aniston and Donald Trump
mtierney said:
After reading today’s headline news story, guess the source. Especially interested the opinions of those who get their news by scanning headlines.
The Tabloid Myths of Jennifer Aniston and Donald Trump
I see that this headline appears in the NYT along with many other websites. Whether or not it is something that should appear in the NYT I cannot say without reading the article. However, I don't have a subscription to the NYT and cannot, therefore, read the article.
Perhaps you can explain why you thought this was important.
what does the reader glean from the headline, alone, is the question.
What motive does the Times have in publishing tabloid news?
mtierney said:
what does the reader glean from the headline, alone, is the question.
What motive does the Times have in publishing tabloid news?
I haven't read the article and I am certainly not going to comment on a mere headline. I am trying to remind myself that even reading a single article is often insufficient and I am not going to go with just a headline. Perhaps there is some relevant context.
mtierney said:
After reading today’s headline news story, guess the source. Especially interested the opinions of those who get their news by scanning headlines.
The Tabloid Myths of Jennifer Aniston and Donald Trump
Once again you are here gleefully posting something that appears on its surface to support your twisted wrongheaded argument, but does nothing of the sort.
The Times article talks about how the tabloids are posting false information about celebrities because some people will buy anything and Jennifer Aniston stories have proven to be particularly good sellers. Like so many other print publications, these tabloids are suffering to compete with the internet, so they will do whatever they have to.
Incidentally the company that is doing this is none other than American Media Inc; the tabloid publisher that supports your President (paid off one of his mistresses to conceal the relationship from his wife and voters) and is a champion of ill informed people everywhere. So it seems that NYT is not guilty of ‘publishing tabloid news’, but you certainly are.
Congratulations on starting off another week carrying the torch for horrible people everywhere.
mtierney said:
After reading today’s headline news story, guess the source. Especially interested the opinions of those who get their news by scanning headlines.
I’d be interested, too, in hearing from readers who get their news by scanning headlines. Anyone?
what does the reader glean from the headline, alone, is the question.
That Trump, like Aniston, has been the subject of tabloid myths?
mtierney said:
what does the reader glean from the headline, alone, is the question.
What motive does the Times have in publishing tabloid news?
The word "Myths" in the headline suggests they are debunking. Do you disagree?
mtierney said:
what does the reader glean from the headline, alone, is the question.
What motive does the Times have in publishing tabloid news?
You seem to have confused "news about tabloids" with "tabloid news".
Red_Barchetta said:
mtierney said:Once again you are here gleefully posting something that appears on its surface to support your twisted wrongheaded argument, but does nothing of the sort.
After reading today’s headline news story, guess the source. Especially interested the opinions of those who get their news by scanning headlines.
The Tabloid Myths of Jennifer Aniston and Donald Trump
The Times article talks about how the tabloids are posting false information about celebrities because some people will buy anything and Jennifer Aniston stories have proven to be particularly good sellers. Like so many other print publications, these tabloids are suffering to compete with the internet, so they will do whatever they have to.
I know you resent my open mind, but when I read that headline, I would surmise that Aniston and Trump were an item — jointly. Such myths are regularly- daily actually — reported as fact regarding both of these individuals is painfully obvious if you spend much time on the supermarket check-out.
Most of the article is about Anistin’s Fake foibles concerning how many pregnancies or babies she has had. Probably these were all planted by her own PR people.
My question is a basic one (not Machiavellian): why would the Times regurgitate tabloid gossip?
mtierney said:
Red_Barchetta said:I know you resent my open mind, but when I read that headline, I would surmise that Aniston and Trump were an item — jointly. Such myths are regularly- daily actually — reported as fact regarding both of these individuals is painfully obvious if you spend much time on the supermarket check-out.
mtierney said:Once again you are here gleefully posting something that appears on its surface to support your twisted wrongheaded argument, but does nothing of the sort.
After reading today’s headline news story, guess the source. Especially interested the opinions of those who get their news by scanning headlines.
The Tabloid Myths of Jennifer Aniston and Donald Trump
The Times article talks about how the tabloids are posting false information about celebrities because some people will buy anything and Jennifer Aniston stories have proven to be particularly good sellers. Like so many other print publications, these tabloids are suffering to compete with the internet, so they will do whatever they have to.
Most of the article is about Anistin’s Fake foibles concerning how many pregnancies or babies she has had. Probably these were all planted by her own PR people.
My question is a basic one (not Machiavellian): why would the Times regurgitate tabloid gossip?
I can't even...
"open mind"
Brain fell out.
mtierney said:
Red_Barchetta said:I know you resent my open mind, but when I read that headline, I would surmise that Aniston and Trump were an item — jointly. That myths are regularly- daily actually — reported as fact regarding both of them is painfully obvious is you spend much time on the supermarket chech-out.
mtierney said:Once again you are here gleefully posting something that appears on its surface to support your twisted wrongheaded argument, but does nothing of the sort.
After reading today’s headline news story, guess the source. Especially interested the opinions of those who get their news by scanning headlines.
The Tabloid Myths of Jennifer Aniston and Donald Trump
The Times article talks about how the tabloids are posting false information about celebrities because some people will buy anything and Jennifer Aniston stories have proven to be particularly good sellers. Like so many other print publications, these tabloids are suffering to compete with the internet, so they will do whatever they have to.
Most of the article is about Anistin’s Fake foibles concerning how many pregnancies or babies she has had. Probably these were planted by her own PR people.
My question is a basic one (not Machiavellian): why would the Times regurgitate tabloid gossip?
The Times is not regurgitating gossip. They are pointing out the lengths other publications are going to in order to stay in business. We can debate what is to be implied by the headline used by NYT, but I think very few will interpret it as DJT and JA being an item.
And yes, I do frequent supermarket checkout lines perhaps 3 times a week.Interpret that however you choose.
Finally you really believe that Stories of JA’s pregnancies were concocted by her own people? Really? That they would create stories of some 15 pregnancies? What on earth would she benefit from that?
mtierney said:I know you resent my open mind, but when I read that headline, I would surmise that Aniston and Trump were an item — jointly.
Open mind? More like dirty mind.
Trash tabloids have to stay in business, in their view, or better yet to scoop the competing tabloid. As for the actress, getting and keeping her name and face in the news is the game plan — 18 babies a bit of a stretch though,
mtierney said:
but when I read that headline, I would surmise that Aniston and Trump were an item — jointly.
seriously?
why would would 15 or 18 pregnancies be 'a stretch'? My grandmother had 13 children, I've had 14 miscarriages.
None of it is my business - the headlines, nor the articles. (I've been reading longer articles elsewhere on the economies and industry politics in trying to maintain any kind of publishing industry since even digital news is shedding staff)
mtierney said:
Seriously.
A headline lacking a verb?
I think that is called a title.
You've said here before that you were once a journalist. Is that what verb-less headlines were called back then, too?
the fact that the headline said "myths" and not "myth" was a pretty clear indication that they were not an item in the tabloids.
myths as in the title defines more than one myth — Two names linked with an “and” says couple.
DaveSchmidt said:
mtierney said:You've said here before that you were once a journalist. Is that what verb-less headlines were called back then, too?
Seriously.
A headline lacking a verb?
I think that is called a title.
Headlines, lacking a verb, fail to tell the story following — no action. Wouldn’t get past the copy editor. 
Suggested rewrite:
“The Tabloids Tell Myths About Celebrities in Entertainment and Politics”
Lousy headline, but, with a verb, and without the cheap shot.
A few months ago, being naturally curious, as well as retired, I counted the President’s name in 22 Times headlines — in one edition!
mtierney said:
Headlines, lacking a verb, fail to tell the story following — no action. Wouldn’t get past the copy editor.
Sure it would. One of the most popular headlines of the last half-century: Headless Body in Topless Bar. (New York Post)
Suggested rewrite:
“The Tabloids Tell Myths About Celebrities in Entertainment and Politics”
Lousy headline, but, with a verb, and without the cheap shot.
I agree that’s pretty bad. Even with a verb, it manages to say nothing new.
Maybe it’s best to leave headlines (mostly) to the copy editors.
OMG, just opened the Times on my iPad, and what do I spy, right out of the gate?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/us/caleb-hanna-bio-facts-republican-gop.html
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
That “some point” was May 2017. https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/real-estate/news/g2535/obama-new-house-photos/
You know, it’s really not hard to check this ****. I just googled Obama family house and this was the first link.