Trever does it again

Albuquerque-based cartoonist par excellence John Trever originally published the below art 19 February, but it appeared in the Free Press on 22 March, still very appropriate.
Mr. Trever is one of the best cartoonists in the history of the medium.

Selfishness helped health-care nationalization pass?

Why did that monstrosity of a bill pass? Here, from the front page of the Monday, 22 March, edition, is one explanation.
Identified as a "Medicare enrollee" and, worse, "UTC professor" -- which implies some level of education or knowledge (or should, anyway) -- Sonia Young cheered the passage of socialized medicine with this explanation: "My feeling is it's not the best bill possible, but it's better than nothing. I have a selfish interest in it as a senior and a mother of a cancer patient."
Now ordinarily "selfishness" is a shibboleth of the leftists: They denounce us with that epithet when we try to forestall their attempts at furthering their fascist welfare state.
Because we want to keep the fruits of our own labor, because we want to make the decisions governing our own lives, we are "selfish."
However, for years I have been trying to tell everyone that greed and envy are the bases of the support the left has among the population.
The left-collectivist politicians have a lot of success buying our votes with our own money.

Who's the moron?

As badly assembled as the TFP is, honesty requires us to mention that not all the nonsense and stupidity and dishonesty originates there. Some of it comes to the TFP via syndicates and other sources, including the shameful Associated Press.
But in the Friday, 19 March, edition of the FYI Weekend insert is something even an alleged "editor" of the TFP should have caught.
Each Friday, the last inside page is called "Punch Lines," and sometimes there are funny jokes and stories and comments.
For some reason, each edition contains some of the garbage known as "Dave Letterman's Top 10," though it is almost never funny.
Now remember this edition comes just after we changed our clocks ahead one hour for the "Daylight Saving Time" imposed by the federal government.
This is titled "Top 10 dumb guy ways to use the extra hour (sic) of daylight saving time," with a note these are the "winning entries in online contest." (God save us from the losing entries.)
Here are a few:
10. Watching "60 Minutes" twice.
5. Try to make VCR blink 11:00 instead of 12:00.
4. Lose an anxious hour of sleep wondering what to do with the extra time.
Granted, the stupidity came from those people guilty of the Letterman show, but surely SOME person at the TFP should have read the dumb things and found something a little closer to real life, something aware we LOST an hour Sunday morning.
But, as I have noted several times, obviously no one actually reads the stuff before it goes to the press.

What's yours is mine

Headline on a Friday, 19 March, letter from someone using the name "Rachel Wheeler": "Propaganda halts health care bill."
(Actually, it is only propaganda, propagated by the "news" media, that has allowed it to get this far.)
I question that "Rachel Wheeler" is the real name of the letter writer because surely no person would use a real name to make such dumb comments.
Here is the topper: "Why allow providers of essential services and products to accumulate great wealth?"
In other words, precisely because you have something I need -- or want -- you should hand it over for free.
Is "Rachel Wheeler" not obviously a product of the Dr. Spock generation?
And no doubt also a dedicated reader of the nonsense so prevalent on the pages of the Chattanooga Times.

Is this blogger the only one who reads TFP?

As has been suggested before, if the Obama administration starts handing out "stimulus checks" to "news"papers, we need to hope the TFP will hire some copy editors.
As has been mentioned before, apparently no one at the TFP office actually reads the thing before it gets printed.
Other than the editorial pages, the worst "edited" part is the shameful TV Times, which seems to be made up of scattered bits and pieces just thrown together.
Example, from the Feb. 28 - March 6 edition: In the TV Trivia quiz, Question 1 is "On the NBC series 'Suddenly Susan' who was Susan Keane? (a) Brooke Shields (b) Kathy Griffin or (c) cancelled after the first season?" (sic, honest).
Oh, and to make it really difficult, beside it is a photo of Brooke Shields.
Question 4 asks which soda was "Radar" O'Reilley's (sic) favorite, with one of the answer choices being "Dr. Pepper." Well, OK, I once worked with an "editor" who kept a can on his desk constantly and he spelled it wrong, too. He was just bad enough to have qualified for the TFP. (For anyone who doesn't know: There is no period in "Dr Pepper.")
In the SneakPeek (upcoming film releases) of the Jan. 24 - 30 edition: "Edge of Darkness (R) Wide Release - Centers on a veteran cop Thomas Craven (Mel Gibson) whose only grown-up child (Novakovic) is murdered on the steps of his home. The cop unearths his daughter's secret life and discovers a world of corporate cover-ups and government collusion. When his only child, 24-year-old Emma, is murdered on the steps of his home, everyone asumes that he was the target. But he soon suspects otherwise, and embarks on a mission to find out about his daughter's secret life ..."
In the edition of Jan. 10 - 16: "The Book of Eli (R) Wide Release - A lone warrior (Denzel Washington) who must fight to bring society the knowledge that could be the key to its redemption. Oldman has been set to portray the despot of a small makeshift town who's determined to take possession of the book Eli's guarding.. (sic)"
And it's like that every week.

Columnist Dowd needs remedial English, as well

New York Times columnist Moron Dowd was one of the first to point a scurrilous finger and call the Tea Party people "racist," with, of course, no evidence (not that that has ever stopped or even slowed her down before).
Moron Dowd has long been in need of remedial study in logic and ethics, but her mess that ran Sunday, 14 March, in the Chattanooga Times proves she needs some refresher also in English.
She wrote of wanting to go to Mecca but, being both female and non-Muslim, she wouldn't be allowed to make the trip.
"And that's when the paradox sunk in ..."
Sure, the wrong tense has crept into American (and I don't know about English; it's mis-spoken in the United Kingdom, but I don't know if that verb form is botched over there as it is here),
The Disney people (and don't we miss Walt nearly every day?) heaped coals on the heads of grammarians with "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids," but Moron Dowd is supposedly a professional writer.
And those "editors" at the vaunted, but obviously over-rated, New York Times are supposedly professional, too.
But apparently none of them and only this Hillbilly blogger does pay attention, or care.
The word, Ms. Dowd, is "sank"; and, Disney people, your word is "Shrank."

Brace yourself: Here is a compliment!

So, OK, nobody is perfectly bad. Even the Times Free Press has one local writer who got it right: Steve Barrett.
His column of Sunday, 14 March, is a gem of good writing and common sense and even good reporting, all of which are in very short supply in the TFP.
A current issue in Chattanooga is the alleged "gouging" of people who ignore "No Parking" signs and get their cars towed -- and then owe big bucks to the towing company.
Chattanooga city government office-holders are wanting to pass a law putting a cap on prices the towing companies can charge.
Mr. Barrett talked to tow company owners to get some facts about their costs in being in business, and about their potential liabilities.
It's worth noting, too, that the towees have broken a law, and have usually blatantly ignored signs saying they could be towed and would be liable for costs.
Mr. Barrett even talked to the board involved and found a member who is quoted regarding the tow companies' costs, costs beyond those normal to being in business: "That point has never been brought up, and that's a very valid point."
The second part of his Sunday commentary concerns "The Security Myth," and a quote I've never seen before is worth repeating: "Security is mostly a superstition," said Helen Keller "on the nature of reality."
His next paragraph quotes The Associated Press: "The trustees project that the Medicare fund will be depleted by 2017."
Those trustees are the same people, government people, who run the Social Security System and will run the new nationalized health care scheme.
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

No surprise: Front-page advocacy in TFP

Probably it's more than a coincidence the headline on the front-page story says "Numbers count for federal aid," with a sub-head reading "Results mean $1,480 for every person recorded in community."
Then, in great, objective journalist style, the story, bylined Dave Flessner, begins, "A postal milestone is coming to your mailbox, starting this week, and your response will be worth millions of dollars to local governments across Southeast Tennessee and Northwest Georgia."
The "news," already announced by tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in advertising, including even an obscenely expensive ad during the Super Bowl telecast, is "the Census is coming."
Here is where the non-coincidence comes in: That very day, Tuesday, 9 March, USPS brought me a letter, very personally addressed:

Dear Resident:
About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.
Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.

Below, in six different languages, is the instruction to "Go to 2010Census.gov for help completing your 2010 Census form when it arrives."
In the U.S. Constitution are these words regarding the census: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
That sentence has, of course, been seriously amended, but the next is operative and relevant to the census: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."
And that's it.
"Enumeration" means a counting, an ascertainment of how many people there are so that representation can be determined.
Those very intelligent and knowledgeable people who wrote the Constitution never intended to create a structure for redistributing assets, for handing around the produce of working people to others.
To reiterate: The Census was meant solely to count people in order to know about proper congressional representation.
Today, though, it is being sold as another "share the wealth" scheme, a "get your share of other people's money" arrangement.
Frankly, I'm looking forward to the opportunity to throw my Census form into the garbage.
And by the way: Wouldn't it be better and simpler in the first place just to let me keep my own $1,480 instead of promising me someone else's?

Racism wins again

Semi-professional columnist (he gets paid but does a lousy job) and professional racist Leonard Pitts, Jr., made some interesting points in his Sunday, 7 March, outpouring, and some of the points he didn't intend to make.
First, let me note a few facts that won't be found in the TFP, or much of any other "lamestream" media.
Essayist and thinker Glenn Harlan Reynolds wrote in a column, "What I Saw at the Tea Party Convention," of two people in attendance who intended to go home to Mississippi and run for office.
They, like so many others there, were not experienced in politics, but were moved by the evils being perpetrated in D.C. and other seats of government.
The two Mr. Reynolds named were (gasp) black!
All right, that's reality. Reality and truth have never been known to stop such people as Mr. Pitts (or cartoonist Clay Bennett).
No, Mr. Pitts insists on seeing racism even though it isn't there.
Sometimes seeing what isn't there is an ocular problem, but often it is a mental problem.
Now, as if Mr. Pitts himself didn't already have credibility difficulties, he begins his column quoting the clinically insane Keith Olbermann of MSNBC.
"A few words on the meaning of tea.
"They are occasioned by a recent commentary from Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. The commentary -- you can find it on YouTube -- scores the tea party movement as the outcry of people who haven't yet made peace with the fact that their president is black.
"Everything else, said Olbermann, is euphemism. Taxes? Socialism? Budget deficit? No, he argued, when you strip away the pretenses and rationalizations, 'it's still racism,' and they hate the president only because he is black."
Now Mr. Pitts is apparently not as loony as Mr. Olbermann: "My point is not that Olbermann's argument is wrong," and of course we would never expect him to disagree with the MSNBC house crazy, "but, rather, that it is incomplete.
"Yes, race is obviously a component, and a major component at that ..."
Well, it goes on, and just further proves Mr. Pitts should be at least an outpatient.
MSNBC reached one of its nadirs when some of its screechy commentators were nigh fainting over a video showing part of a body that was armed and, worse, armed at an appearance of President Obama.
The MSNBC hysterics just couldn't accept that some obvious racist, and probable Klansman, would DARE appear in the crowd of a black president (their words) wearing a firearm. What a horrible sight!
Fortunately other, and genuine, news organizations also had video footage of that man with the holstered weapon. And the other organizations showed the whole person -- who is (gasp) black!
Well, Mr. Pitts, who is also black, obviously makes a pretty good living -- a better living than he deserves -- playing that proverbial race card.
But Mr. Olbermann, who is white, obviously reported on too many football games without his helmet (to paraphrase Harry Truman on Gerald Ford).
His rants are so beyond the pale, I can't understand why even Mr. Pitts would bother to quote him.
"Liar" is a word I hate to use, but Mr. Olbermann is either willfully blind, meaning dishonest, or perhaps just so incredibly stupid that he actually can't and doesn't see what is in front of him.
What is equally blind, stupid, and racist is the editorial policy of the TFP that every week prints a hate-filled and either dishonest or at least very inaccurate column by Leonard Pitts, Jr.

Columnist Magee joins the mad rush

David Magee was blessedly gone from the pages of the TFP for some time and no one I know or know of missed him. Alas, he's back, further polluting the pages of an already dismal paper, causing the deaths of countless innocent trees, and joining the throngs of economic and constitutional illiterates in the media.
Since his return as a regular columnist, his work has been boring but generally innocuous.
His column of Thursday, 4 March, while still boring, is not innocuous. He echoes the call for nationalization of health care.
"Health care costs are rising faster than inflation," he wrote, apparently ignorant of the causes of inflation, or, probably, even the meaning of the word.
His last paragraph shows his total disdain for the plight of the working and producing people, as well as his ignorance of both moral and economic consequences: "Sure, the fix may not be exactly right. It may not even be halfway there. Anything, though, is better than the current situation, which does not add up."
His attitude, similar to that of President Obama, is also similar to that of the Nazis toward the end of World War II: They knew the Allies were winning; they knew they would not have time or opportunity to kill all the Jews, but they were willing to kill as many as they had in their power.
Mr. Magee, Pres. Obama, and so many of the other unthinking left-collectivists know they can't completely socialize these United States; they know the coming elections will throw a lot of them out of office; but they are willing to collectivize as much of the economy as they are allowed, and destroy a lot of lives doing it.

Editors offer divergent views

As most educated readers know, editorial writers are generally the fuzziest thinkers and dullest wordsmiths even in the generally fuzzy and dull world of journalism.
In the edition of Wednesday, 3 March, the leftist Times editorializer hewed to the demagogic party line that the evil Senator Jim Bunning is grabbing food and medicine out of the mouths of starving widows and orphans:"Sen. Bunning's cruel hold."
The rightist Free Press ditto titles his editorial "Senator calls Congress' bluff."
Mr. Anderson's position is "Sen. Bunning is now being denounced for blocking federal spending. Instead, he should be praised for proving that Congress' supposed 'pay-as-you go' rules are really 'pay-as-you-borrow-and-tax' rules."
The Times demagoguery contains such garbage as "Party of No" and "their blatant obstructionism," winding up with "... they don't seem to mind how many innocent Americans they hurt in the process."
In all the long years the Times has been proclaiming big, intrusive government -- and that's all the years I've been aware of its existence -- "innocent Americans" have seldom been the concern of its editorial writers ... or its "news" reporters.
"Innocent Americans" are the working and producing people whose money is forcibly taken to allow the demagogues to buy more votes ... and to make the economy even worse by excess regulation and red tape and taxation.
If editorialists really cared about "innocent Americans," they'd call for more actions such as Sen. Bunning's and for repeals of laws and restrictions.
They'd call for a free market that would create jobs and let people work.

Editor misses point of campaign finance

Jumping on the bandwagon of complaints about political campaigns and money, editor Lee Anderson (Thursday, 4 February) expresses his worry about "huge sums of money from corporations, labor unions or any other organizations that may be able to concentrate enough money to improperly 'buy' election decisions."
As is usual in this discussion, Mr. Anderson is worrying about the smallpox spots rather than the disease.
If politicians and office holders would simply obey the Constitution, if they would simply restrict themselves to creating laws that protected the rights of people, then there would be no problem.
The problem, the possibility of moneyed interests either buying elections or influencing legislators or bureaucrats, would not even exist if governments, politicians, and bureaucrats had not just taken, illegally, immense power and powers unto themselves.
Many interests give money to buy favors, and others give money to prevent further harm.
Chop down the size and scope of government, and the money question ceases to exist.

Astonishing! A clever 'Rant'

Mirable Dictu! There is one intelligent TFP reader who wrote to "Rant" and got a comment published:
They say Obama, Reid and Pelosi spend like drunken sailors. When I was a drunken sailor, I quit spending when I ran out of money!
It becomes even better when one realizes it was published the day before the record-shattering Obama budget was announced.

"Moral" headline is right ... almost

"Care labeled a moral issue" is a headline on a story in the Metro & Region section of the Saturday, 30 January, edition.
A so-called "medical ethicist" named Larry Churchill is subject of the story because he is scheduled to speak (barring several inches of "global warming" keeping the roads closed to him -- essentially Tennessee has been shut down by a major storm) Sunday.
His topic is "What is Really at Stake in Health Care Reform" (sic).
In the story, bylined by the notorious Emily Bregel, apparently the TFP's primary advocate of a socialized medical system, he is asked "What is the greatest barrier to health care reform in the U.S.?"
Naturally, this academic, who doesn't have to live in the real world, cites the fact that a lot of people make their living, or, as he says, "a very good living," providing medical services.
Mr. Churchill, who as a Vanderbilt University Medical Center employee, makes a very good living, makes a heck of a lot more money than, even, Emily Bregel, but he still feels superior enough to tell the rest of us we are -- and of course I'm extrapolating here -- "selfish."
He would probably say "racist," too, since that's the current buzz word, the most-used trendy word to denounce us non-elites, us proles who dare to disagree with our betters.
Still, the headline writer got it right, though unintentionally, I'm sure: It is indeed a moral issue and the elitists, who won't forgo a penny of their income (forced from the pockets of working and producing people), are not only willing but eager to coerce all us proles into complying with their version of a moral code.
It is so strange to watch those elitists throw up their hands in horror if a high school valedictorian wants to say "Thank you, God": That, they say, is imposing a religious viewpoint, and that's a no-no.
When those elitists, though, decide on a moral code, it's more than all right to impose it since, after all, it was created by those elitists, those highly educated -- actually merely schooled -- superiors who are, by definition, our betters.
At least by their definition.

Racist Stulce endorses racist Bennett

Being morally and intellectually bankrupt, today's American left is able only to resort to vicious name-calling and denunciations of any proles who dare to disagree with our betters.
In the TFP edition of Wednesday, 20 January, former would-be Democrat candidate for Congress Terry Stulce has a letter to the editor.
In it he joins the finger-pointing chorus (it's not really a mixed metaphor: a vocal chorus is a waste to people who refuse to listen, but even those intentionally deaf might see fingers).
The erstwhile candidate, despite overwhelming financial support, despite spending about 10 times as much as his opponent, despite having the support of the Times editorial and news departments, lost the primary.
Even the other Democrats, at the rank-and-file level, were uncomfortable with his near-Marxist approach. The leaders, of course, were in lock step.
His letter appeared on the one-year anniversary of the reign of the Anointed One, and the new year continues to be as ugly as the previous.
For example, Mr. Stulce, rejected even by other Democrats, writes in support of cartoonist Clay Bennett, about whom a few opposing letters have recently been published.
Mr. Stulce and Mr. Bennett, bigoted and closed-minded to the last, continue to try to foist onto the public the untruth that the Republicans and the Tea Party movement are racist.
Mr. Stulce uses the technique of equating two not-necessarily connected positions to "prove" his own basically moronic point. He says, for example, that people, including the late President Reagan, who opposed so-called affirmative action are also anti-black. Consistently, the two ignore the fact, available to any honest person, that the leading public opponent of "affirmative action" is Ward Connerly, who is (gasp!) black.
Mr. Stulce claims, without a speck of evidence, offering not any proof, there have been "racial slurs" at "Republican rallies by 'tea baggers.'
It would be easy to claim Mr. Stulce is merely a lying pile of garbage, but it is possible that he is merely crazy, or -- to be kind -- merely blind.
Glenn Beck, who is probably the only broadcaster to make the effort, has had at least two programs whereon all the participants were black conservatives and libertarians and at least one anarchist -- anarchist in this case meaning probably "anarcho-capitalist."
There have been many people including speakers at the rallies and protests and Tea Parties who were black, but of course they were ignored by the "news" media, and certainly ignored by racists such as Messrs. Stulce and Bennett.
One of the black speakers, at a rally in Pennsylvania, referred to the previous November election as one where white voters of America showed they were not racist ... and black voters showed they are.
Black columnists Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, both of whom are frequently published on the Free Press page of the TFP, are vehemently on record opposing the socialist-fascist policies of the Obama administration; how can Messrs. Stulce and Bennett ignore such prominent blacks, who are published in the same raggedy paper as Mr. Bennett's cartoons and Mr. Stulce's silly letters?
Obviously -- there is no other answer -- Messrs. Bennett and Stulce are racists. They are blind to the existence of blacks, those "invisible men" (in Ralph Ellison's words), who don't bow to the elitists, such as, by pure coincidence, Messrs. Stulce and Bennett.

Racist Bennett draws perfect picture of a leftist

Clay Bennett, who has shown himself to be a racist with his attacks on Tiger Woods (and, after all, he himself said that criticizing a black person can only be for racist reasons), has now given us an honest picture of today's "liberal," who is, these days, usually only liberal with other people's money.
In his cartoon in the Perspective section of Sunday, 17 January, he draws Sarah Palin on a TV screen, with "mute" in large letters and a caption of "Sarah Palin at her best."
Now, we could take that as meaning Women should be seen and not heard.
Or we could take as his meaning that his mind (using the term loosely) is made up and he refuses to be confused with any facts, that he refuses to listen to anything she might say, on any topic, because he has excommunicated her and that's it.
Really that typifies today's "liberal" attitude. Attack personally, but don't deal with any ideas or issues.
Mr. Bennett is a disgrace to any tradition of civil discourse, but he symbolizes both the "news" media approach and the leftist means of dealing with any other belief.

Where stand the intellectuals?

About 2,500 years ago, an aphorism, translated from the Greek, said something to the effect "There is no idea so stupid that some philosopher won't support it."
Only a few decades ago, George Orwell said to some argumentative Communist, "You must be an intellectual. Only an intellectual could say something so stupid."
The term "intellectual," obviously used very loosely, today includes people in education, politics, and, most loosely, journalism.
It should include only people of intellect, people who deal with ideas.
Unfortunately it means, more often, people who can be and are called "elitists."
In the Sunday, 10 January, edition of the Perspective section is a perfect example of what I mean above: New York Times (and hence Chattanooga Times) columnist David Brooks pontificates that the real divide in the United States body politic is between the educated and the uneducated.
Naturally Mr. Brooks and other Times adherents are the educated (despite the poor quality of their respective papers). Those of us who oppose the various forms of involuntary servitude proposed by those intellectuals are, by definition, uneducated:
"Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.
"The educated class believes in global warming ..." despite record low temperatures, especially the last couple weeks but actually during the last three years.
Brooks, the educated, doesn't mention real weather but goes on to say "... so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise."
Yeah, us uneducated people ought not to pay attention to thermometers, shouldn't look out the window, should, instead, just listen to our betters, such as Mr. Brooks.
He goes on, mostly attempting to trash the Tea Party movement, but by serendipitous coincidence giving a nice lead-in to a column on the other side of the paper by Thomas Sowell titled "Intellectuals vs. society."
The once-again-great doctor says, "There has probably never been an era in history when intellectuals have played a larger role in society. When intellectuals who generate ideas are surrounded by a wide range of others who disseminate those ideas -- whether as journalists, teachers, staffers to legislators or clerks to judges -- the influence of intellectuals on the way a society evolved can be huge."
Intellectuals include, for example, Karl Marx, whose ideas led to the murders of hundreds of millions of people all across the world.
Non-intellectuals, as Dr. Sowell points out, include the Wright Brothers, who gave a lot more to people and the world than the Marxes and Brookses and the Mussolinis -- all of whom, interestingly, were in one way or another journalists.
Dr. Sowell also said this: "Intellectuals generate ideas and ideas matter, far beyond the small segment of society who are intellectuals. Ideas affect the fate of whole civilizations."
Then, next day, Dr. Sowell goes on, in a column titled "Good ideas vs. practical ones." In it he says, "If there is any lesson in the history of ideas, it is that good intentions tell you nothing about actual consequences."
Among the other sins of journalism is that those consequences are not reported as they should be.
We can still point out The New York Times and its adulation of Josef Stalin. That kind of miserable reporting was a good antecedent for its reporting of the most recent presidential election. The Times was just one of the "news" media slobbering (to use the very apt word of Bernard Goldberg) over Barack Obama.
Ideas most certainly do matter, and one of the problems in this modern day is that one idea, that of liberty, seems to have no place in "news" reporting or, apparently, in the minds of intellectuals generally.

Readership declines further

According to baseball folklore, during an early practice of the New York Mets, a fielder, trying to catch a pop fly, missed, and the ball hit him on the head.
Legendary manager Casey Stengel shook his head and prayed, "Doesn't anybody here know how to play this game?"
Surely the people who own and manage the Times Free Press must be asking themselves something similar: "Doesn't anybody here read this thing?"
I think not.
Here is one reason I thus think, a listing in the lamentable TV Times of 20 -26 December 2009:
A Story of David ** ('60,Drama) Jeff Chandler. DO NOT USE. King Saul unjustly accuses David of seeking his throne ...
Then in the next issue, in the regular feature called "tvtrivia" is this example. There are five questions, and a picture of someone named Katie Cassidy is inset with question 1: Who currently plays Ella Simms 'Melrose Place' 2009? (sic) Answer choices: (a) Katie Cassidy (b) Stephanie Jacobsen or (c) 6416? (sic, again)
Interestingly, the answer is ... Katie Cassidy.
Question 4: Why were Jerry and his pals sentenced in the series finale of 'Seinfeld'? (a) for disturbing the peace (b) a case of mistaken identity (c) or for helping out?
Honest, sic.
Here is the answer: 'Good Samaritan Law.'
Answer: No, nobody here reads this thing.
Maybe if the Obama administration does carry out the threat to shell out "stimulus" money to the "news" media, the TFP will hire at least one copy editor.

Speaking of vicious ...

For some reason, the first "Perspective" section of the year shows a retrospective of work by hatemonger Clay Bennett, staff cartoonist of the Times. (Interestingly, the editors chose not to re-run his nastiest cartoon, the one in which all us opponents of the Obama administration's collectivist ambitions are portrayed as Ku Klux Klanners.)
To be honest, three or four times a year, Mr. Bennett is not a hatemonger or vicious collectivist, and once or twice is even somewhat humorous.
But he seems to prefer to be vicious. For example, when Sarah Palin's book -- which has sold in the millions, and in fact advance orders forced her publisher to re-start the presses -- a Bennett cartoon showed a couple standing in front of a store with her book on sale, saying, "Shouldn't she read a book before she writes one?"
Now the caricature leftists and hatemongers have of people like Ms. Palin is that they are ... well, if not illiterate, certainly un-read.
Naturally only the elitists, our betters, such as Mr. Bennett, are the truly literate and knowledgeable. (They refuse to believe that Ronald Reagan probably read more books than any other president, of recent times, anyway.)
Ignore that Sarah Palin, to name one, actually has a college degree in ... journalism!
Hmmmm. Come to think of it, after reading such raggedy publications as the Times Free Press, I realize perhaps they have a point. Perhaps we should recognize journalism grads are probably among the least-educated people in American society.
They obviously don't know history, are even more ignorant in economics, seem not to have even a passing acquaintance with ethics and morality, and far too often don't even know grammar, punctuation, or style.
Yet these are the people who act as filters as to what you and I are allowed to learn as "news."
I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would vote for Sarah Palin. She is, after all, a Republican. But, even so, I do wish there were some modicum of fairness, of decency in how she's treated.
Childlike, I guess, I also wish there were more than a modicum of fairness, of decency in "news" generally.
And, while I'm at it, I wish I had a pony.

Viciousness gets uglier

Perhaps it's because I see mostly the left-oriented "news" outlets, and fewer of the right-oriented ones, though of course "news" media are mostly left oriented, but I cannot remember seeing the viciousness, the ugliness against leftists that I see, on a daily basis, against rightists.
Attacks on Sarah Palin, as noted often, have reached the point of insanity.
I have not seen anyone say "Palin says so-and-so on this issue and she is wrong for these reasons ..."
No, it's usually the kind of garbage Times cartoonist Clay Bennett dishes out: Personal attacks, but not necessarily with any basis in reality.
The left-oriented outlets, though, don't limit their nastiness to spews from only their own staffers. Here are four examples, listed in order in the moronic "Rant" column that worsens an already miserable Sunday opinion section:
Joe Lieberman is greedy, arrogant and vindictive and has chosen loyalty to insurance companies over his commitment to the American people. That's his legacy.
Obama, get a backbone! You're giving in to Republicans. You are being bought by insurance and drug companies. This is not what I voted for.
GOP senators and the right wing media inflating them now have blood on their hands, the blood of millions of uninsured men, women and children.
Jimmy Carter apologizes to Israel, good. Now, maybe he should apologize to the American people for being such a flake!
While at the same time bewailing environmental losses, leftist editors waste the lives of innocent trees with this stuff? And, still at the same time, moan and whine that they don't have room for the important news, that, apparently, they really aren't covering anyway?
Even funnier, they don't understand why people are canceling subscriptions.