Loading...
Title : What these Washington Post headlines really mean.
link : What these Washington Post headlines really mean.
What these Washington Post headlines really mean.
(Click to enlarge and clarify.)
"Democrats convulse over race as debate exchange reverberates."
Don't they notice the near rhymes — race... debate... reverberates? For me, they ring out and what WaPo wants me to take soooo seriously sounds carefree and silly, like the worst Dr. Seuss book ever written.
Convulse... reverberates... It's so obvious that they're desperate to generate excitement from dull material. Me, I have a very concrete mind — hey, don't put quick-drying cement in that milkshake — and the headline-writer's dead metaphors are alive. I see the candidates falling to the floor, twitching, flailing, spasming. I entertain the notion that the use of the metaphor is disrespectful to persons with epilepsy.
Anyway, the debate was last week. I think The Washington Post is straining to come up with material to fill up the front page. Look at the rest of that stuff. Would the age-old story of water shortages in India rise to the top if there was some good new bad news? The picture is a cracked dried-up lake in Chennai, India, but you know it wouldn't festoon the front page if there were any fresh mud to throw at Donald Trump.
And what's that in the top left corner? "Trump’s hard-line approach appears to soften in meetings with world leaders." The Trump news is only as bad as they can make it by referring to the past. He had a hard-line approach, but he's not using it now. "President Trump has dismissed criticism that he is failing to make big deals, arguing that his patience and relationship-building will pay off for the country." Yeah, "he is failing" — that's the best they've got, as they struggle to make the good news bad.
Under that: "Trump’s surprise meeting with Kim is over. For Pompeo, the real work has just begun." Working hard on the "he is failing" theme, they're portraying Trump's meeting with Kim as mere show, with the "real work" left to be done, but still, we can see this is good news about Trump.
Next: "Fact Checker: No, Obama didn’t beg Kim Jong Un for a meeting." I laughed out loud when I read that. The word "beg" is the obvious set-up for making Trump look bad. We all know, without reading, that Obama wanted to do something about North Korea, and he had to hand the terrible problem over to Trump. Who cares about the degree to which Trump may have misstated exactly how Obama tried to do something about North Korea as the problem worsened over his 8 years in office? This headline, in spite of itself, underscores that Trump is making progress and Obama did not. (But if you click through, you'll see that Trump gets 4 Pinocchios for saying "The Obama administration was begging for a meeting. They were begging for meetings constantly.")
Down in that lower left corner, we see the problems at our southern border continue to look ugly, but the 2 stories are about crap posted on social media. Should I click through to see who said what? Oh, there's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the young Congresswoman, rising onto the front page again. She's looking passionate, and it seems that somebody somewhere on the internet is being mean to her. Who? I don't know. The headline is funny grammatically. There's no human being targeting her, just "posts." Yes, dear readers, posts are out there, doing their nasty work.
My conclusion is: Wow! We are living in good times! Enjoy it, my friends. This is how the newspaper looks when we're living in peace and happiness. Learn how to recognize it, because The Washington Post is not going to tell you things are good. Things are good.
(Click to enlarge and clarify.)
"Democrats convulse over race as debate exchange reverberates."
Don't they notice the near rhymes — race... debate... reverberates? For me, they ring out and what WaPo wants me to take soooo seriously sounds carefree and silly, like the worst Dr. Seuss book ever written.
Convulse... reverberates... It's so obvious that they're desperate to generate excitement from dull material. Me, I have a very concrete mind — hey, don't put quick-drying cement in that milkshake — and the headline-writer's dead metaphors are alive. I see the candidates falling to the floor, twitching, flailing, spasming. I entertain the notion that the use of the metaphor is disrespectful to persons with epilepsy.
Anyway, the debate was last week. I think The Washington Post is straining to come up with material to fill up the front page. Look at the rest of that stuff. Would the age-old story of water shortages in India rise to the top if there was some good new bad news? The picture is a cracked dried-up lake in Chennai, India, but you know it wouldn't festoon the front page if there were any fresh mud to throw at Donald Trump.
And what's that in the top left corner? "Trump’s hard-line approach appears to soften in meetings with world leaders." The Trump news is only as bad as they can make it by referring to the past. He had
Loading...
a hard-line approach, but he's not using it now. "President Trump has dismissed criticism that he is failing to make big deals, arguing that his patience and relationship-building will pay off for the country." Yeah, "he is failing" — that's the best they've got, as they struggle to make the good news bad.
Under that: "Trump’s surprise meeting with Kim is over. For Pompeo, the real work has just begun." Working hard on the "he is failing" theme, they're portraying Trump's meeting with Kim as mere show, with the "real work" left to be done, but still, we can see this is good news about Trump.
Next: "Fact Checker: No, Obama didn’t beg Kim Jong Un for a meeting." I laughed out loud when I read that. The word "beg" is the obvious set-up for making Trump look bad. We all know, without reading, that Obama wanted to do something about North Korea, and he had to hand the terrible problem over to Trump. Who cares about the degree to which Trump may have misstated exactly how Obama tried to do something about North Korea as the problem worsened over his 8 years in office? This headline, in spite of itself, underscores that Trump is making progress and Obama did not. (But if you click through, you'll see that Trump gets 4 Pinocchios for saying "The Obama administration was begging for a meeting. They were begging for meetings constantly.")
Down in that lower left corner, we see the problems at our southern border continue to look ugly, but the 2 stories are about crap posted on social media. Should I click through to see who said what? Oh, there's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the young Congresswoman, rising onto the front page again. She's looking passionate, and it seems that somebody somewhere on the internet is being mean to her. Who? I don't know. The headline is funny grammatically. There's no human being targeting her, just "posts." Yes, dear readers, posts are out there, doing their nasty work.
My conclusion is: Wow! We are living in good times! Enjoy it, my friends. This is how the newspaper looks when we're living in peace and happiness. Learn how to recognize it, because The Washington Post is not going to tell you things are good. Things are good.
Under that: "Trump’s surprise meeting with Kim is over. For Pompeo, the real work has just begun." Working hard on the "he is failing" theme, they're portraying Trump's meeting with Kim as mere show, with the "real work" left to be done, but still, we can see this is good news about Trump.
Next: "Fact Checker: No, Obama didn’t beg Kim Jong Un for a meeting." I laughed out loud when I read that. The word "beg" is the obvious set-up for making Trump look bad. We all know, without reading, that Obama wanted to do something about North Korea, and he had to hand the terrible problem over to Trump. Who cares about the degree to which Trump may have misstated exactly how Obama tried to do something about North Korea as the problem worsened over his 8 years in office? This headline, in spite of itself, underscores that Trump is making progress and Obama did not. (But if you click through, you'll see that Trump gets 4 Pinocchios for saying "The Obama administration was begging for a meeting. They were begging for meetings constantly.")
Down in that lower left corner, we see the problems at our southern border continue to look ugly, but the 2 stories are about crap posted on social media. Should I click through to see who said what? Oh, there's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the young Congresswoman, rising onto the front page again. She's looking passionate, and it seems that somebody somewhere on the internet is being mean to her. Who? I don't know. The headline is funny grammatically. There's no human being targeting her, just "posts." Yes, dear readers, posts are out there, doing their nasty work.
My conclusion is: Wow! We are living in good times! Enjoy it, my friends. This is how the newspaper looks when we're living in peace and happiness. Learn how to recognize it, because The Washington Post is not going to tell you things are good. Things are good.
Thus articles What these Washington Post headlines really mean.
that is all articles What these Washington Post headlines really mean. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article What these Washington Post headlines really mean. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-these-washington-post-headlines.html
Related Posts :
Is it foolish to think this painting of union workers killing strikebreakers expresses something about homosexuality?
Russia's New Nuclear Missiles Have Some Problems Mixed With Some Successes
U.S. Carries Out First Successful 'Salvo' Interception Of An ICBM Target
Down to Sixteen -- Louisville Softball today -- TUESDAY CARDINAL COUPLE- "Well, I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected that there was more than there actually was."
0 Response to "What these Washington Post headlines really mean."
Post a Comment