The New York Daily News should really be ashamed of themselves.

Yesterday the NY Daily News had a picture of Saddam and Bush at side-to-side podiums as if they were debating. The headline was-- Saddam to Bush: LET"S DEBATE.-- In very, very tiny print in a little corner there were the words: [sub]Daily News photo illustration[/sub]. Inside the paper there is a story about how Hussein challenged Bush to a debate (as if this stupid peice of bullshit uttered by Saddam merits a four page spread, much less a huge front page picture.)
I receive a phone call from my cousin (she’s not too up on current events, unless they cover it on Entertainment Tonight): You were home, Biggirl. Did I miss the debate?

My son glances at the paper: Hey, when did that happen?

Today-- a full day after the photoshopped front page came out there was still confusion. An ex-co-worker calls to ask me if I knew when they were going to show the debate on TV. This person is not a stupid person. This person didn’t actually read the paper, she just saw that picture all over the newstand.

The Daily News suckered New Yorkers. I always thought of them as a step ahead of that other NYC peice of crap newspaper, The Post. Photoshopping their front page puts them on par with The Weekly World News.

So was it this one or the Post that had the front page headline, “SADDAM’S PUPPET SPOUTS LIES”?

For comparison purposes:

  • Globe and Mail code of conduct

I bet your brilliant cousin was nearly shocked to death when she saw that the French and German ambassadors to the UN were Man-Weasals.

My cousin is a dear. She worries so much. She called me a few weeks ago to make sure I bought some duct tape and plastic. She really is a sweetie and doesn’t get offended at all when I laugh.

Oh Biggirl, did you like the Target: Sadaam on page one of Wednesday’s Daily News?

matt_mcl, I don’t think the NY Daily News really qualifies as a newspaper. It’s a paper that may occassionally, accidentally include some news (which puts it light years ahead of the NY Post). Still, can’t argue with a paper which includes four pages of comics, and no one comes close to Bill Gallo.

Hey, I depend on the Daily News for my “Headless Body in Topless Bar” information! And pix of half-naked celebrities in the Rush & Molloy gossip column! And things like just what the Gambinos’ defense attorney said about Steven Seagal being a big sissypants (page ten of today’s edition). The Times just doesn’t CARRY that sort of thing!

Not to mention the four pages of funnies, as D_Odds already mentioned.

Also, you can see the News as a kind of farm team for the Times…both Gail Collins and Bob Herbert, now mainstays of the Times Op-Ed page, started out at the News.

That’s why I like theWashington Post.

All the news and three pages of funnies.

Well I don’t blame The NY Daily News for your cousin and son not keeping up with current events. Perhaps your cousin should watch and read more news worthy material than worrying about J Lo and Ben. I am not saying she needs to be an expert but at least keep her self up to date without relying on just a headline for her news source. If she seen the headline how difficult would it have been to read one of the articles? I am sure that within a few lines it would have been clear that they did not debate yet.

Also the headline said “Saddam to Bush: LET"S DEBATE” NOT “Saddam and Bush Debated”. I understand your position that they should not have made the picture appear as though they already debated but if they read the 5 words in the headline they could have easily understood that Saddam was calling Bush out to a debate.

Lets face it. The NYDN, NY Post, and in Queens, Newsday all fight for your attention to get your money. You should know by now that headlines are eye candy not the real story.

I have to disagree with you on the headline should have clued them part. The headline said LET’S DEBATE! and the picture it was over actually showed the two of them debating with no clear indication that this photo was doctored.

My son was the one who bought it to my attention. He brought me the paper and said "I looked at this and thought “when did that happen!” and we laughed. He did read the story. So? And what about the hundreds of thousands who didn’t read the story. They’re stupid because newspaper doctered a picture and put it on the front page with a clear intent to deceive?

Newspaper are supposed to inform us, not trick us.

Man, if you can’t trust the NY Daily News, whom can you trust?

Just out of curiosity, what’s a Weasal?

I prefer the Daily Bugle, even if they do have too much coverage of that awful Spider-Man.

I can’t comprehend what part of “LET’S DEBATE” is unclear? Please explain how those two words indicate that the debate already happened. FYI I am not arguing that the picture was misleading. As I said before, the front page is there to get your attention (and it did :slight_smile: ).

My point is that they should not read the headline and assume they know the story. How often do you see commercials for TV shows and News broadcasts that mislead you or reel you in so you will watch.

You said: “And what about the hundreds of thousands who didn’t read the story. They’re stupid because newspaper doctered a picture and put it on the front page with a clear intent to deceive?”

Did I call them stupid? No. Are they misinformed? Yes. (I won’t even ask for a cite that shows hundred of thousands of people only read the headline and not any of the articles.)

Something as important as the impending war with Iraq should garner a little more interest than just looking at the front page picture. Even if its not picking up that issue of the Daily News they could have easily found out by watching numerous TV News reports (IIRC started the day before), seen it on the internet or heard it on the radio that Saddam challanged Bush to a debate.

I disagree that the words of the headline indicate the debate hadn’t happened, especially combined with the picture. If the headline had read LETS FIGHT! and the picture had been of a tattooed Mike Tyson and whoever-the-chump-they-got-to-fight-him in a ring fighting, would the headline indicate the fight hadn’t happened yet?

First point-- Do you have any idea the hundred of thousands of people who see the cover of this particular paper every day and don’t buy it or read it?
Second and major point–They are misinformed. It is the job of one of New York’s leading papers to inform them, not deceive them.

But. . .but. . . THIS IS THE JOB OF THE FREAKIN’ NEWSPAPER!!! The people at The New York Daily News should be ashamed of themselves! They deliberately set out to misinform the public. How is it the fault of the misinformed that their source of information deliberatley set out to misinform them.

Still, you have to admit it wasn’t as bad as them man-weasels in the Post.

First of all that is only part of the Headline. The entire headline as you quoted was “Saddam to Bush: LET"S DEBATE”. Clearly that is challenge being made by Saddam to President George W Bush. Oh wait! Could that also mean Barbara Bush? Laura? Or maybe Saddam was talking to the twins?

Oh I see. The accompaning picture seems to show that SH and GW Bush already debated (I have to see this picture to see how realistic it looks. I am not arguing this point.) Upon further inpsection of the picture you notice it says that the picture is a photo illustration. Case closed.

First point-- Do you have any idea the hundred of thousands of people who see the cover of this particular paper every day and don’t buy it or read it?

No, but do you have any idea how many? Or even better, how many actually knew what the headline was reffering to? Or had other papers to fill them in?

Second and major point–They are misinformed. It is the job of one of New York’s leading papers to inform them, not deceive them.

Ok try this: Inform every single person on every single current event in todays newspaper within the headline and picture. It can’t be done. That is why we have the articles. In your logic the articles are meaningless and it’s the headline that carries the most weight in informing us. That’s great, from now on I will just read the headlines and not worry about anything else.

Again! The headline is their to get your attention to buy the paper NOT give you the details of the story. You read the articles to learn the specifics of what actually happened.

Because showing a picture of Saddam and Bush debating with the headline: Saddam and Bush: LET’S DEBATE would lead people to believe it was the twins he was debating. If the picture had been of the twins or Barbara (or even weasle-men), you’d have a point.

My God, you’re right! You haven’t even seen the cover, yet with your clever debating skills, you managed to close the case! You’re a genius.

Yes, I have an idea. It’s probably more than one hundred thousand who see the paper and don’t buy it-- there are almost 8 million people in NYC and there are newstands on practically every coner in Manhattan and every other corner in the other boroughs. And what do these other papers have to do with The Daily News tricking people?

How about if we try to hold newspapers accountable for the crap they try to serve instead of making excuses for the crap they try to serve?

PS, if anybody can find Tuesday’s NY Daily News cover on the 'net, couldja post it? I’ve looked but can’t find it.

This is a joke without a smiley, isn’t it? Or perhaps I’m parsing it wrong and it should be

which the NY Times at least attempts to do (but it’s too hard to manipulate on a crowded subway and has no comics, so I’ll stick with my Newsday for now).