Wall Street Journal

[canada-man]

https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html

CNN defends pedophiles

 

[managee]

https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html

CNN defends pedophiles

 

[shack]

i posted links to sources but you and promo like to whine and complain like little children

i posted links to sources but you and promo like to whine and complain like little children

Instead of us having to search for them, why don't you give us the salient points.

As well, do these sources reconcile that you say they are the same story with different headlines depending on geography, when in fact they are simply different articles but use the same picture? If they do, those are damn good sources.

How do you like BS's latest earth shattering revelation?

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...acks-for-depopulation-Published-science-paper

 

[Aardvark154]

Those newspapers are from August 31 or September 1, 2016

 

[malata]

Playbook has better reading

 

[oldjones]

Besides the obvious question of how many people actually get their news from a print edition of a newspaper - These are actually different editions published in the same market at different times of the day. The other obvious question is - if the editors of various papers are so devilishly clever at manipulating opinions (and therefore delegate voting patterns - which is what this story implies) how did Trump end up winning the nomination? And THE most obvious question: why wouldn't these geniuses be hired by campaign teams at multiples of their current salaries?

To hijack this back to a more serious issue — pun accepted: Consider how few internet news-media (so-called) actually date and time stamp their stories, let alone signal the revisions, or allow you to go back and re-consider the earlier version. With print that is all part of the package every one gets. In fact, it's entirely feasible technically to deliver a different web page to each subscriber. Indeed we all see it everyday.

What c-m inadverently illustrated were some of the inherent advantages and superiorities of the more permanent and responsibly managed print media over the sort of evanescent, semi-responsible and almost untraceable cyber-sources he usually prefers.

 

[Promo]

To hijack this back to a more serious issue — pun accepted: Consider how few internet news-media (so-called) actually date and time stamp their stories, let alone signal the revisions, or allow you to go back and re-consider the earlier version. With print that is all part of the package every one gets. In fact, it's entirely feasible technically to deliver a different web page to each subscriber. Indeed we all see it everyday.

What c-m inadverently illustrated were some of the inherent advantages and superiorities of the more permanent and responsibly managed print media over the sort of evanescent, semi-responsible and almost untraceable cyber-sources he usually prefers.

Absolute pet-peeve of mine! Understanding the date is key to evaluating the content and considering what may have changed since the document's preparation.

Agree: "feasible technically to deliver a different web page to each subscriber". This is extremely common for advertising and becoming more common for article's geo references, time references, currency references, etc.

It's also possible for the site to discover an error in their original story, correct it and not note the correction. I go back to reread the material, suspect something has changed and begin doubting myself or the site.