Comments on: Comments on 10987

Post number 10987

wsfinkel — Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:18:51 -0800

How Sleazy Sellers Rake in Big Bucks on the City's Suffering. When I saw this headline on the NY Post this morning I assumed that it was an article explaining the Post's marketing strategy. The Post put gratuitous photos of the WTC explosion on the front cover for a story about exposing salesmen who were making money from selling the photos. Good old Rupert!

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:35:08 -0800

Funny how the local media's cover shots of the two towers burning couldn't be included as examples of that. I guess it's what they consider "their racket". The brain-dead post makes a further show of its complete ineptitude when it claims that "three shots for $2" is a much, much lower amount than "70 cents a print". Is the editor in a coma over there? 3 shots for $2 = roughly 67 cents a print, for the benefit of the mathematically-challenged Dan Kadison and Jessie Graham, the original writers of the article. Perhaps the Post ought to go after the scoundrels at TV Guide, which features the Tower 2 explosion on the cover of its latest edition for cable subscribers in the Hudson co. area.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 02 Oct 2001 06:34:49 -0800

Can't get any sleazier than Murdoch! It's not just that he's sleazy but as wsfinkel points out he is very hypocritical and hypocritical in a very bold fashion.