Story here. The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has retracted it’s panning of the Gettysburg Address back when the paper was called the Patriot & Union. In 1863, the paper called President Lincoln’s remarks “silly” and hoped “the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them, and that they shall be no more reposted or thought of.”
Finally, they’ve admitted they called it wrong.
Typical pinko commie rag.
Latest update - http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-jebidiah-atkinson/n43348/
It’s kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t, sort of thing, right? I mean, if they didn’t retract it, they’d be the paper that never retracted an obliviously wrong editorial. But then, hardly any of us would know that. By retracting it, they are now the paper that was only terribly horribly wrong for 150 years and only just recently wised up. Not sure if that is really any better.
Two words: Page clicks.
The retraction itself is pointless other than as a naked bid for pageviews. You will find shocking things like that in any newspaper if you go back a couple of generations, and the way they ape the wording of the Gettysburg Address itself is tacky. But it’s interesting to see what they originally wrote about the speeches. I had heard that Lincoln’s speech was overlooked in 1863, but I’d never read a real example. I see the Patriot-News hated Lincoln’s speech and hated Everett’s just as much. It sounds like they decided it was Lincoln’s fault he sucked. They really, really hated Lincoln, and there’s a lot of fascinating history there, too.
A lot of sources of the day panned the address.
But the guy who spoke before Lincoln(and took two hours to do it!) was greatly impressed. Edward Everett, a noted orator, wrote to Lincoln about it. From Wikipedia:
In a letter to Lincoln written the following day, Everett praised the President for his eloquent and concise speech, saying, “I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.” Lincoln replied that he was glad to know the speech was not a “total failure”.
Yeah, but Everett was a noted kiss-ass. 
Weren’t most papers of the 19th century openly partisan, with most town having a Democratic and Republican papers? I’m not surprised papers would attack anything not in line with their party affiliation.
Yep. I know I would never have heard of the rag if not for this “controversy”.
But I still have fond memories of his later work on Rocky and Bullwinkle.
They’re a pretty decent mid-sized paper. One of their reporters was way out front of everyone else on the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State.
I thought this thread was going to be about the New York Sun admitting that there isn’t a Santa Claus after all.
Grinch!