Tennessean sitting on story about McNair's mistresses?

Good grief.

I'm not trying to discount what anyone else has said on this thread. I'm not trying to tie "holding the story with the decline of the paper."

This newspaper was being discussed. Another poster mentioned that the original story made reference to the "general decline" of that particular newspaper.

I happen to think that section has pretty much fallen apart in the past three or four years. I shared my opinion. Don't agree? Fine. But at least get the facts straight about what I wrote.

As for sitting on the story: I have no problem with it given the newspaper's policy on not using anonymous sources.

 

Glen, I never you were trying to tie the paper's decline with holding the story. I was responding to what was said in the story, which does tie the two.

 

That's a good point.

 

Clay's second book is about to get published. He's not just a blogger.

And, while he certainly didn't have to take a shot a Biddle — one of the nicest guys in the business — he made good points about The Tennessean's decline. Few sections have fallen off a cliff like that one. When you lose Chris Low, Paul Kuharsky and Larry Woody, and you inexplicably eliminate the freaking Vols beat (which got them more Web hits than the Titans beat), you've got serious problems. Great guys and writers are left on that staff, but even they know what's happened to their shop. It's sad.

 

Before I tell you my score, let me say my strategy was to attribute what I thought were the more concise and coherent quotes to Gore and the strange stuff to Unabomber.

That said, I scored 42%---got more than half them wrong.

Guess I need to read Gore's book. Or not.

 

It's unbelievable isn't it? You really can't tell them apart.

Tony Snow came up with this on his radio show years ago. I remember hearing it live. Each passage he wrote I thought had to be the Unabomber, but of course about half of them were Gore.

Go ahead folks, take the quiz. It's good for a laugh at least.

 

You take the quiz and find out just how bizarre and even laughable Gore's writing is, and it really makes you wonder how in the world this guy won a Nobel prize and made tens of millions of dollars off this deal, regardless of where you stand in the global warming debate!!

This really is troublesome. Very strange and in large part a reflection of how many Americans must be living their lives in a mass stupor.

 

Of course, context-free is a damn good way to skewer somebody. And so what if the Unabomber sounds more reasonable in context-free statements. No one would surely say that the Unabomber is therefore more sane than Al Gore.

Meanwhile, O_T just ran over his wife to get to the computer and doesn't know why.

 

It's not that the Unabomber sounds sane, it's that Gore sounds so crazy -- and so similar to the Unabomber.

 

As I said, context-free is a fun land to play in, but not to put down roots in.

 

So if I read the whole book I'd find his writings to be more sane?

What's the context for crazy?

 

Yes, you probably would. Well, you wouldn't, because your well is brimming with poisoned water on the issue. But you darn well know that things that seem to be silly standing alone make perfect sense in context.