the "paper of record" (nods and quizzical looks towards the mr mill city boys who have gone unfortunately silent of late) publishes some of the least professional editorial content available outside of the supermarket checkout aisle. (i've been meaning to ask the folks at market basket, who are usually pretty organized about such things, why they insist on stocking the one bunch there by the registers, and the other nearby the entrance, but, hey, i'm not in grocery retail, so maybe there's something else i'm missing about that). the editorial news choices are all-too-often illiterate, ill-informed, and biased to the point of caricature, and the editorials are even worse. i told a friend the other day that i could read ann coulter's syndicated columns right there in my local paper, (he's a republican, even), and he cracked up for five minutes straight. when i mentioned that the complete set included kathryn jean lopez, i thought he was going to pee his pants laughing. "are they [meaning the paper] serious?" (that's a direct quote).
i save face only by telling him and other people i know that i read the sun like most folks read publications like mad magazine. (unfortunately, there's no fold-in, though when you crumple it all up it does just as good a job in the packing box as most other actual newspapers). want to know why i read the sun, really? rob mills. lisa redmond. (i'm guessing there are more writers there that i like, but i can't think of any off the top of my head, since the others i knew by name all got fired recently so they could afford to continue publishing peter lucas' nonsense columns three days a week).
yeah, i know i should cancel. i really do. for now, though, i satisfy myself by simply talking other people out of bothering to start their habit in the first place. (it's surprisingly easy to convince them--i just show them my paper, and when they stop laughing, they tell me they get it, and by "it" i don't mean the paper).
"evidently" was an adverb offered in today's editorial to sum up an 8-paragraph screed against everything and everybody who isn't charlie baker, used to explain the "dead heat" in the massachusetts gubernatorial contest. except, when i go to actual news sites to corroborate the "facts", i find out things like, for example, "patrick's lead steady, up 5 over baker" (WBUR, citing a rasmussen telephone survey), or "latest poll shows patrick widening lead over baker" (WHDH in cahoots with suffolk university from their latest joint poll), and i'm wondering exactly who is zooming whom here. (note the proper use of object pronouns, examples of which are far less likely to be found in the editorial copy of the lowell sun, but, hey, there i go piling on...) the evidence, as far as i can interpret, is simply that the lowell sun will, as a function of its questionably literate and highly-biased editor in chief, print anything it pleases regardless of fact, and leave us wondering whether it's intended to be comedy, or self-satire.
i'm still pulling for comedy, but, well, you know about me and my judgment...