Who reads the newspaper?

Wow, really says it all doesn't it when a newspaper has an official "view". Also the (noticeably smaller) article by the sheriff actually includes facts and examples and is far better written.

Also
>muh big money
>muh twisted logic
>muh political clout
Fuckin kek, cuz Bloomberg is neither big money nor political clout and their "logic" includes using a mass shooting where the shooter bought his gun at a gunstore with a background check as a reason why we need background checks.

>>31656129
be amazed that they bothered to ask for an opposing viewpoint at all

I read something interesting by that skype Tim Wise today talking about how the far left need to have contingency plans for what to do when whites fight back and start shooting.

File: liberal fascism 109 front page editorial nyt.jpg (671KB, 1546x2302px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1546x2302px

>>31656129
>(noticeably smaller)
It's intended to give the desired result a sugar coated frosting of democratic input.

>Anyone read/hear similar statements from their media outlets of choice lately?
Yes. All the time. Why?

>>31656129

I looked elsewhere in the "A" section of the paper to see if they gave the author any contribution for that "official" standpoint. Nothing and no one was named for that article, not even a mention of a "staff" writer.

After doing some more research, here is the digital version of the article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/11/guns-background-checks-elections-nov-8-editorials-debates/91871110/

"The Editorial Board" is credited for the article, and it is described as:

>USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view -- a unique USA TODAY feature.

And here is who is on the editorial board: http://static.usatoday.com/reporters/boc/

>>31656063
Newspapers aren't profitable anymore, so they tend to just be the private propaganda machine of whichever billionaire bought them up as a status symbol.

>>31656199
>It hasn't worked but at least they TRIED so we should also try the stuff they already demonstrated doesn't work.
Do these people ever read the verbal diarrhea that they spew or naw?

>>31656293
>Sternberg

>>31656293
But newspapers are required, because how else am I going to start fires in the winter?

Coincidentally the NY Times is amazing as a firestarter. I'm not sure what the makeup of the paper is, but it's pretty much perfect. Shame I graduated from college and don't have access to free racks of the things anymore.

>>31656063
Hate to say this, but all the background check stuff will probably pass in both Maine and Nevada. The uneducated voter likes the sound of it and will vote for it without second thought.

File: republican hate kills ny faggot parade 2 weeks after orlando wtf seriously.jpg (63KB, 800x391px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x391px

>>31656321
That was America's Paper Of Record's second ever front page editorial, not some insane bullshit on HuffPo.

They are not spewing, and they are not 'those people.' You underestimate the depths of shit our civilization is in.... and the number of people in our civilization who can stomp around in shit and say hey, this feels nice and warm and it smells just fine. In fact, I like it and anyone who doesn't is wrong and evil and stupid. And I will keep saying so until we all go off the same cliff.

Keep buying ammo.

>>31656404
>second ever front page editorial,
Fun fact: the first one was shilling military surplus, including guns.

>>31656199
look out folks, make way for the deductive talents of capt. obvious

>>31656404
The best part about that picture was that the guy was a registered democrat.

>>31656063
>Who reads the newspaper?
they still print newspapers?

To change gears slightly, who's THE WORST news source? I think its a 7 way tie between Vox, The Huffington Post, Slate, Motherjones, The Washington Post, Salon, and Buzzfeed.

Besides that OP, I think this post is best left to /pol/

>>31656490
Mic. Holy fucking shit Mic. Everything they write is missing key parts of the story because it's designed to push an agenda and they make zero apologies for it, even when caught.

>>31656456
The 2nd best part is that they hate the republicans yet they're the only ones who actually want to combat radical Islam.

Are you guys 13, is this the first time you have ever picked up a newspaper

Editorial opinion columns are printed in every newspaper in the country every day of the week


>>31656129
>Wow, really says it all doesn't it when a newspaper has an official "view"
>really says it all

are you fucking kidding me, how old are you dude

>>31656467
it's strictly for the convenience of old folks who can't or wont use the interwebs and still own a flip phone

>>31659641
Most Newspapers still at least keep up the appearance that editorials are solely the opinion of the article's author rather than an official position taken by the paper itself.

>>31656490
>who's THE WORST news source

CNN

>>31659738
Anon, please, there's absolutely no room to argue that CNN is worse than MSNBC.

This is something that can actually be empirically proven.