Holly Golightly: Whore or Connoisseur?

"No one ever lost a dime underestimating the taste of the American people."

H.L. Mencken Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Or, for that matter, their stupidity. Arrrgggh, the Rupert factor..

"No one ever lost a dime underestimating the taste of the American people."

H.L. Mencken Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I guess if we reverse that theory, the NYT is a great paper -- they are going broke.

yet strangely, they are one of the very few papers that are financially healthy. Imagine that. Originally Posted by pjorourke

"No one ever lost a dime underestimating the taste of the American people."

H.L. Mencken Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I guess if we reverse that theory, the NYT is a great paper -- they are going broke. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The WSJ's reputation back in the day when I was seeing it regularly was basically: "News pages: great journalism. Editorial pages: reactionary horseshit useful for wrapping fish and lining birdcages, and very little else."

An interesting phenomenon I noticed back when I was practicing law, though, was that in a lot of firms and companies I both worked at and visited, the WSJ was basically a display piece. Every law firm, and almost every business I worked at/dealt with had a subscription, which was displayed prominently in the reception area, but I never saw anyone actually reading it. It was basically out there to reassure people that you (law firm partner or business owner/manager) weren't some untrustworthy, leftist Democrat.

Small sample issues may apply, but I was always amused at that.

Cheers,

bcg

Gentlemen:

I don't want to interfere with your partisan jousting, but I got the quote/definition from the weekend wine column. I don't think that's emblematic of the editorial character of the WSJ. It could of been the weekend NYT.

Funny, I go back and forth between having the WSJ and the Times delivered for my weekday paper. Kind of a grass is always greener thing.

I think it is fairly obvious that in the book, Holly is a working girl. I thought the book was good, though not by a far stretch Capote’s best work IMHO. The movie, I didn’t enjoy so much. I just don’t think it did the book justice, but then again I didn’t think the movie version of “To Kill a Mockingbird” did the book justice either.

I just don’t see sexually liberated women being an accepted concept by human society for a very, very long time. I was discussing this very concept last night friend of mine. One, I think women tend to settle men down, and I don’t think seasoned, sexy women – for the most part – are very settling . And two, women that are connoisseurs of their man and not men in general don’t want sexually seasoned and self actualized women around too awfully much.

I never saw anyone actually reading it. It was basically out there to reassure people that you (law firm partner or business owner/manager) weren't some untrustworthy, leftist Democrat.
Originally Posted by bluffcityguy

Maybe I'm weird, but I read it every day -- not cover to cover, but skimming the headlines to look for articles of interest. Used to get the paper paper delivered, but now I subscribe electronically which is easier for travel.

BTW, many law firms need that protective coloration.

Maybe I'm weird, but I read it every day -- Originally Posted by pjorourke

Before I became Ans, I dated a man that was head of an investment firm. I remember him telling me that he would get into the office around 5:30 or 6 to read five different newspapers and the WSJ was one them. I always thought the WSJ was a good paper. Why are so many disputing the contents?

Why are so many disputing the contents? Originally Posted by Ansley

They are Liberals and loathe the slant of the editorial page -- even though that has nothing to do with the news content -- which like all drivel produced by most reporters is leftish in POV. But if you are interested in business news, it and the NYT Business pages are the definitive source of information. You just have to wade through the cant.

I always thought the WSJ was a good paper. Why are so many disputing the contents? Originally Posted by Ansley

I like the pictures.

OED, the definitive dictionary, defines connoisseur as "an expert judge in matters of taste;" from an early and obsolete 18th century French word, conoistre, 'know.'

And Ansley, the WJS used to be the only place and definitive place to could get market data. Now that is done online. They have a great deal of corporate news, though much of it is little more than reporting on corporate press releases. Some original content business news, although PJ is correct, it is probably the largest single place for that sort of original reporting. However, even the news page takes a very uncritical view of business' role in society. And this cant has become much more pronounced under the ownership of the most dangerous man in the world, Rupert Murdoch. Then there is their retromingent and reactionary editorial page policy

They are Liberals and loathe the slant of the editorial page -- Originally Posted by pjorourke

Not necessarily. I'm a liberal (and have a liberal sister-in-law). We don't loathe the WSJ. We disagree with the editorial slant, but recognize the extremely good journalism contained therein. It is somewhat frustrating to find articulate opposite points of view than our own. But I would rather be challenged by the WSJ excellence than the Sarah Palin vapidness.

And this cant has become much more pronounced under the ownership of the most dangerous man in the world, Rupert Murdoch. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I nominate George Soros - the Hungarian Communist turned French criminal now billionaire supporter of the takeover of the USA by the Progressives.

the most dangerous man in the world, Rupert Murdoch. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I nominate George Soros - the Hungarian Communist turned French criminal now billionaire supporter of the takeover of the USA by the Progressives. Originally Posted by John Bull

How about the Trilateral Commission? [Now, that out to bring the conspiracy theorists racing off the starting block.]

How about the Trilateral Commission Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Merely a front for the Illuminati.



Cheers,

bcg

Merely a front for the Illuminati.



Cheers,

bcg Originally Posted by bluffcityguy

I haven't had a belly laugh like this for months! thanks bcg