Best. Tabloid. Front. Ever.

[MileHigh]

Pretty good. The Mets beating the Astros is what puts it over the top.

Actually, "Debbie Does Abbottabod" on the TV screen is a nice touch as well ...

Indeed. Any amateur could've come up with Osama bin Wankin'. It's the tv screen and the Whora Bora subhed that make this a master(burtory) piece.

I'm not sure about that. The beauty of the headline is that "Osama bin (fill in the blank)" has been low-hanging fruit for headline writers ever since he got capped.

But the Post held back and waited for the just the right moment and, voila!, we have hilarity.

Not only that, they don't give a **** and run with what 99 percent of us WISH we could do. It's top five all time.

 

[wicked]

Like this.

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

If you're looking at those two options on a news stand, the Post wins easily.

Just out of curiosity, why? Regular readers know that on non-local stories, neither paper's heds are usually indicative of what their respective stories (rewritten from the wires) will deliver. I don't believe it has significant effect on buying choices unless you are a tourist. If I've been burned before and I've already seen today's attempt at humor on the newsstand, why would I need to pay to see what's inside? I know from seeing the cover that the newspaper has, well, already shot its wad. I think they are playing to their established niche, not taking readers away from anyone else when they do this stuff.

I disagree completely. With exceptions like this, the cover is rarely the best thing in the paper. It's the little one-column heds that I wonder how they come up with anything that blow my mind. It's the spreads. It's the big sports stories. There's nothing about the Post that has "shot its wad."

That's nice that you like the Post and find it worth reading. However, my point is that a person who buys it because of the front-page hed -- as the post by Versatile suggests -- is likely to be disappointed, especially when the story is just a rewrite of the wires to suit the Post's agenda or pre-written hed. Sometimes the Post's hed even will say the complete opposite of what the Post's story says. In this case, by the time the paper went to press, half the people in NYC already knew there was no proof bin Laden was the porn user because even the two news radio stations managed to work that fact into their 20-second sound bites. So when you saw the Post's hed on the newsstand, you would conclude either A.) The Post has some info that no one else has and buy the paper or B.) The Post again is full of it and not buy the paper if you usually don't. "B" is almost always the correct assumption.

It's extremely unlikely that no one at the Daily News thought of some variation on an Osama-jacking-off hed, at least in jest. No doubt headline writers even in flyover farm country did so for their own amusement. So the people at the Post work at the one daily "newspaper" in America that would actually publish one. Sorry, I see no particular greatness in that.

 

[Versatile]

If you're looking at those two options on a news stand, the Post wins easily.

Just out of curiosity, why? Regular readers know that on non-local stories, neither paper's heds are usually indicative of what their respective stories (rewritten from the wires) will deliver. I don't believe it has significant effect on buying choices unless you are a tourist. If I've been burned before and I've already seen today's attempt at humor on the newsstand, why would I need to pay to see what's inside? I know from seeing the cover that the newspaper has, well, already shot its wad. I think they are playing to their established niche, not taking readers away from anyone else when they do this stuff.

I disagree completely. With exceptions like this, the cover is rarely the best thing in the paper. It's the little one-column heds that I wonder how they come up with anything that blow my mind. It's the spreads. It's the big sports stories. There's nothing about the Post that has "shot its wad."

That's nice that you like the Post and find it worth reading. However, my point is that a person who buys it because of the front-page hed -- as the post by Versatile suggests -- is likely to be disappointed, especially when the story is just a rewrite of the wires to suit the Post's agenda or pre-written hed. Sometimes the Post's hed even will say the complete opposite of what the Post's story says. In this case, by the time the paper went to press, half the people in NYC already knew there was no proof bin Laden was the porn user because even the two news radio stations managed to work that fact into their 20-second sound bites. So when you saw the Post's hed on the newsstand, you would conclude either A.) The Post has some info that no one else has and buy the paper or B.) The Post again is full of it and not buy the paper if you usually don't. "B" is almost always the correct assumption.

It's extremely unlikely that no one at the Daily News thought of some variation on an Osama-jacking-off hed, at least in jest. No doubt headline writers even in flyover farm country did so for their own amusement. So the people at the Post work at the one daily "newspaper" in America that would actually publish one. Sorry, I see no particular greatness in that.

Frank, I think you're really overestimating the intellect of the low-brow folks targeted in the tabloid wars. Or even just human life.

 

[Boom_70]

People who read The Post want to be entertained, learn what is going on and do not want to invest a lot of time and effort.

I believe that The Post fills that bill.

Just a guess but I doubt that there is a big incremental increase in paper sales when The Post has a headline like today.

I also think that a lot of Post readers also read either The Times or WSJ where they get their in-depth news.

 

[Point of Order]

If you're looking at those two options on a news stand, the Post wins easily.

Just out of curiosity, why? Regular readers know that on non-local stories, neither paper's heds are usually indicative of what their respective stories (rewritten from the wires) will deliver. I don't believe it has significant effect on buying choices unless you are a tourist. If I've been burned before and I've already seen today's attempt at humor on the newsstand, why would I need to pay to see what's inside? I know from seeing the cover that the newspaper has, well, already shot its wad. I think they are playing to their established niche, not taking readers away from anyone else when they do this stuff.

I disagree completely. With exceptions like this, the cover is rarely the best thing in the paper. It's the little one-column heds that I wonder how they come up with anything that blow my mind. It's the spreads. It's the big sports stories. There's nothing about the Post that has "shot its wad."

That's nice that you like the Post and find it worth reading. However, my point is that a person who buys it because of the front-page hed -- as the post by Versatile suggests -- is likely to be disappointed, especially when the story is just a rewrite of the wires to suit the Post's agenda or pre-written hed. Sometimes the Post's hed even will say the complete opposite of what the Post's story says. In this case, by the time the paper went to press, half the people in NYC already knew there was no proof bin Laden was the porn user because even the two news radio stations managed to work that fact into their 20-second sound bites. So when you saw the Post's hed on the newsstand, you would conclude either A.) The Post has some info that no one else has and buy the paper or B.) The Post again is full of it and not buy the paper if you usually don't. "B" is almost always the correct assumption.

It's extremely unlikely that no one at the Daily News thought of some variation on an Osama-jacking-off hed, at least in jest. No doubt headline writers even in flyover farm country did so for their own amusement. So the people at the Post work at the one daily "newspaper" in America that would actually publish one. Sorry, I see no particular greatness in that.

"Good day, sir! GOOD DAY!"

 

[YankeeFan]

Boom's right. Count me as a post lover.

It's perfect for an 18 minute ride on the 4 train (or from Larchmont to Fordham Road on Metro North).

You've got to be an origami master to read the Times on the train.

Back when the Post was only an afternoon paper, it was the News for the morning commute and the Post for the way home.

And it's plain wrong to suspect Post readers are "low brow". The fact they're reading any paper puts them far ahead of most. They'll get the news. They'll be entertained, and they'll read the Times later.

 

[Double Down]

I think -- as far as news coverage -- the Daily News is better than the Post, headlines not withstanding. (I'd probably take the Post as far as sports coverage, in part because of Vaccaro.)

The Post writes funny headlines. Probably always will. The DN does a better job covering the actual news.

 

[YankeeFan]

The biggest problem with the Post is their cheap ink.

Your hands are an inky mess after reading it and if you're wearing kakis, or other light colored pants, be sure to not rest it in your lap.

 

[Boom_70]

One thing to note is that The Post on Saturday goes to $1.00 from .50 during week.

Perhaps a good headline on a Saturday might sell more papers.

 

[Versatile]

And it's plain wrong to suspect Post readers are "low brow". The fact they're reading any paper puts them far ahead of most. They'll get the news. They'll be entertained, and they'll read the Times later.

I read the Post on occasion. I choose it over the Daily News regardless of the headline on the front, as I think you were saying you do as well. I have a preference, and therefore, I am not a target of the tabloid wars. I am not a person who would ever say "Oh, the Daily News is wittier on its cover today, so I'll read that."

But the people who the cover wars are fought for happen to fall into a low-brow category. They're literally judging a newspaper by its cover -- a cover that doesn't even have stories.

 

[wicked]

Not quite as good as bin wankin, but still pretty good.

 

[Clerk Typist]

The Post classic, HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR, still is No. 1 to me. Who doesn't want to read that story?

 

[king cranium maximus IV]

The Post headline in my brain was:

Weiner's Weener Boner

Or if the pic actually came from him:

Weiner on Weener Boner: "Nuts!"

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I think if more papers were like The Post, the newspaper business would be doing a lot better than it is.

 

[Rudy Petross]

I think if more papers were like The Post, the newspaper business would be doing a lot better than it is.

I second that. When I am in NYC I always read the Post. Except on Sundays when I slug through the NY Times for what seems like a blissful eternity.

 

[Boom_70]

Pretty good follow up cover today with picture of the "tweetee"

 

[Azrael]

The New York Post loses tens of millions of dollars every year. And has for decades.

Murdoch's other properties keep it afloat.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921114_mz016.htm

 

[YankeeFan]

The New York Post loses tens of millions of dollars every year. And has for decades.

Murdoch's other properties keep it afloat.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_08/b3921114_mz016.htm

I was going to point this out as well.

But, it's also in a very competitive market.

And, if you live in an apartment building with no doorman (like most of New York City), a subscription is pretty much impossible.

 

[imjustagirl]

The best part of any trip to NYC is waking up in the morning, buying a Post at a newsstand, and hitting a bagel shop. Mmmmmmmm bagels and awesome headlines.