Anthrax This!

October 20, 2001 6:43 PM

Anthrax This! A message from the anthrax infected employee of the New York Post. I've never seen a newspaper cover like this before. Anyone have an reactions, thoughts?
posted by yevge (30 comments total)

the Post is not unknown for its blunt front pages.
posted by o2b at 6:51 PM on October 20, 2001

Come on, this has been all over the net, Drudge included.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 6:52 PM on October 20, 2001

Thoughts? Okay. The Post and every other media outlet clamped to this story with the tenacity of a pit bull with lockjaw are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to.

Do enjoy.
posted by raaka at 6:56 PM on October 20, 2001

Wait, I'm confused as to how this is exactly what the terrorists want the media to do, can you explain a bit more? Is it about hubris? I guess that just wasn't my first reaction so I don't quite get what you're saying. I will say that I have never seen a cover like this, and not being too familiar with the Post, I am taken aback. My question however is, what was inside? What was the stricken girl's message besides the obvious?
posted by babydoll at 7:10 PM on October 20, 2001

Guts girl. But as my wife said: how come I can't have a boyfriend in the same place where I work? She has. And I (my wife) told you don't shit where you eat. She said: then why do you brush your teeth in the bathroom?
posted by Postroad at 7:15 PM on October 20, 2001

is this real ?
posted by adnanbwp at 7:28 PM on October 20, 2001

I don't know, I've never seen it all over the net. I saw it at a newstand, and went to find the online version on the Post site.
It's today's paper, so how did it get all over so quick?

Babydoll... I'm not sure I know what you are talking about...

The Post is known for its bluntness, but I've never seen something this blunt.
posted by yevge at 7:30 PM on October 20, 2001

Yes, this is real.

I bought the real newspaper, this is an online image of what the cover looks like.
posted by yevge at 7:30 PM on October 20, 2001

It doesn't seem any more blunt than the image of the Statue Of Liberty giving the bird. I don't have the URL for that, but it's circulated the web enough that I'm sure that you've all seen it.
posted by Katy Action at 7:42 PM on October 20, 2001

Katy, could you give me a link, I've never seen it, and can't find it on google. Maybe I'm not using the right keys.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 7:51 PM on October 20, 2001

http://nypost.com/
posted by Siraulo at 8:19 PM on October 20, 2001

full story is here
posted by johnboy at 8:43 PM on October 20, 2001

Pretty much standard The Sun fare. (Unfortunately their front pages aren't archived, but they're often this ... uh ... forthright.)


The NY Post's a Murdoch paper, yes? I expect there's some crossover of editorial experience here.

posted by ntk at 9:05 PM on October 20, 2001

This never would have happened, if she had been working on a Nanogen NanoChip™ Molecular Biology Workstation. The Anthrax nucleic acid sequence would have been instantly detected and she would have been alerted via a pop-up window.
posted by obedo at 9:25 PM on October 20, 2001

pure class.
posted by deepdisco at 9:37 PM on October 20, 2001

So, ah, she's trying to say, "New York Post, number one"?
posted by MAYORBOB at 9:43 PM on October 20, 2001

Three words... Rock on SoulSister!!!

We're not buying in to what the terrorists (whoever they are) want, we're not having a knee-jerk reaction (to a worldwide condidtion that's been under our noses for years), and we're not cow-towing to a marketing blitz.

We're fighting back - and if it takes a photo of a real-life person who's being affected to raise the ire in some of your throats, then so be it.

We're not Star-Trek (at least not 'Enterprise'), we're not above being 'earthy' or 'crude', we're human. It's half past noon in the world of terroism, and it's about time we got off our pedastal. In other words - she shoots a bird for all to see... So what? Good for her.
posted by matty at 9:49 PM on October 20, 2001

I'm not offended! I am amused to no end. This may not pass muster on the venerable family newspaper standard, but that hasn't notably concerned the post much in the past.

This will be an all-time classic New York headline, along with FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD (NYDN) and the Post's own contribution HEADLESS BODY FOUND IN TOPLESS BAR.

Though for the record I suspect domestic mischief in the anthrax scare, I'm sure her sentiments are widely shared.
posted by dhartung at 10:16 PM on October 20, 2001

Mischief indeed. Rascally kids...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:18 PM on October 20, 2001

damn Alfafa and his weapongrade Anthrax
posted by Mick at 11:10 PM on October 20, 2001

wow, I didn't think to be offended, I guess I am just too jaded. I didn't really find this shocking at all.

My question is, does this make sense to you? She ALREADY has anthrax, so why say "anthrax this"? - They already did.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 11:13 PM on October 20, 2001

Wow.. that'll really get those terrorists. They gave her anthrax, and she gave them the bird. They started a nationwide panic, we return fire with a brassy, in-yo-face newspaper photograph which they may or may not see. Talk about your trade deficits.

Sorry, wait.. oops.. America is perfect, courageous, and we win .. AGAIN!
posted by Hildago at 11:32 PM on October 20, 2001

The article--a testimonial by the victim--ends with the words "Osama. You loser." Because though she's stricken with anthrax and has had to have multiple trips to emergency rooms to repair her finger--including what the article makes sound like minor surgery--she's going to continue 'kicking ass' as a journalist in New York.

In her story, the victim repeatedly says things like "I was on the Fox News Ticker!" and "There were throngs of journalists on the sidewalk wanting to talk to me!"

That may be a ludicrously disproportionate response to contracting anthrax, but I have to say I'm glad the Post, which hovers on the margin of decency all the time anyway, pushed the boundary of what's acceptable in times like these a little further out.
posted by benghoil at 12:16 AM on October 21, 2001

The article says: "Osama. You loser." Hang on kids, there's something missing here. Reports that we're getting in the UK suggest that Osama bin Laden's not responsible for the recent anthrax attacks - instead it's being posited that a US-based right-wing group is most likely to have sent them.

This would make sense given that Bush and co have been careful to not yet blame the Taliban for the anthrax, and also to make warnings against Americans setting up anthrax hoaxes. So how about: "opportunistic right-wing American militias: you losers"...?
posted by skylar at 1:21 AM on October 21, 2001

babydoll, the chance you’ll recieve anthrax via post is about zero. The possibility that journalist at a well-known media outlet will contract anthrax is higher but still very low. Judging solely on the volume of anthrax and sociopathic copycat stories in circulation, you’d think the phenomenon
has reached epidemic levels.

Coverage about this story is far out of porportion to its actual effect. Meaning people who follow it stand to become fearful of things where no danger exists. To terrorists, this is a massive success. They needed a sentastionalistic, hyperactive media to stir up fear which they certainly couldn’t produce themselves.

Coverage of the 9.11 events were about on the level. Three days of solid coverage and front pages around the globe was about what the events warranted. I don’t think coverage went overboard and most of it wasn’t inflammatory. The same can’t be said about the anthrax story.

About a dozen notable contemporaries getting mailed anthrax—which about seven people have actually contracted, only one of which has died¹—doesn’t warrant MSNBC changing an interstitial title to “Bioterrorism: America’s New War” or innumerable sidebars titled something like “What to do if you recieve anthrax” or “How to spot a suspicious package.” There simply hasn’t been enough of articles like Why the Anthrax Scare Isn't As Bad As You May Think.

Some of the attention paid to terror mail could be spent on future plans for Afghanistan and the possibility the terror attacks will be used to emabark on Oil War III.

¹ My numbers are probably slightly off as I’m consciously not following this story closely. The quality and tone of reporting reminds me of the Condit or Impeachment sagas—little solid evidence, empty accusations and not much happening.
posted by raaka at 2:25 AM on October 21, 2001

We're not buying in to what the terrorists (whoever they are) want, we're not having a knee-jerk reaction (to a worldwide condidtion that's been under our noses for years), and we're not cow-towing to a marketing blitz.


1. Millions are buying into terror. Look at the recent raise in gasmask sales and the stocking of the anthrax antibiotic.

2. Flipping off people on the cover of a newspaper looks pretty knee-jerky to me.

3. This is nothing more than a marketing trick. Makes you just want to buy it up and see what she has to say!
posted by skallas at 11:37 AM on October 21, 2001

Marketing tricks on the front page of newspapers? My God, what will come next in this new era of horror?

I think it's appropriate. She blamed Osama in the article, but she was basically giving the bird to whomever it was (and I do agree the pattern more indicates a handful of nutjobs, probably right-wing). It's the American equivalent of the British stiff upper lip. Given the real terror we have experienced, it's appropriate to show any terrorists that we won't be cowed.

The anthrax case she had sounds like one of the most serious of the cutaneous cases so far. While unlikely, she could have died. Damn right she's mad. Damn right the Post is mad, and gonna give her a forum.

Crimeney, for once it's justified.

Of course, it would be nice if the media would allocate one small fraction of the space given to the anthrax story to, oh, I dunno, Congress rescinding many rights of the accused and investigated persons until 2004. I had a hard time even finding a story that explained the debate in Congress about that one.
posted by dhartung at 12:00 PM on October 21, 2001

This is the same newspaper that ran a cover with the headline "Ash-holes" to report on WTC scams a few weeks ago. The Post is a perennial money-loser and will try most anything risque to compel pedestrians to pick up a copy. (They have great sports coverage, though.)
posted by werty at 8:21 AM on October 22, 2001

Today's new word is "anthraxed," from The diagnosis is Anthrax Envy. "Saturday's Post front page - which featured our own newsroom hero, anthraxed Editorial Page assistant Johanna Huden - was a great "Screw you!" to our News counterparts. We got anthraxed - twice! - and they didn't!"
posted by Carol Anne at 9:17 AM on October 22, 2001

I *heart* new yawk
posted by p2bilt at 10:01 AM on October 22, 2001