Extra, Extra! Read all about it:

Late-breaking Bulletin: I quit

EVENING BULLETIN editor John Secor stormed out of the paper's Walnut Street office on Thursday after slamming his office keys on the desk of publisher Tom Rice.

Secor, who started in March after founding editor Kevin Williamson resigned, had turned in his resignation last month, but planned to stay until his successor was hired. But he quit Thursday after what he considered a patronizing meeting with Rice.

When we spoke with Secor on Friday we asked him for the top five reasons he quit. He repeated the name "Tom Rice" five times.

He said Rice has no business being near a newspaper, let alone running one....Rice, who became very wealthy working as a stock trader, launched the conservative-leaning paper in November 2004.

....Secor, 39, on Friday was heading back to his home state of Michigan, where he had lived and worked until being hired by the Evening Bulletin last spring.

We have previously reported that Evening Bulletin employees were often paid late. Former columnist John Leonard told us on Friday that in his 10 months at the paper he was paid on time three times.

Leonard also said he was surprised one morning to find that his company cell phone had been turned off and that he was unable to access his work e-mail account. A colleague told him he'd been fired. He had not heard from Rice.

Leonard, who wrote about sports and business, had been with the paper for 10 months and said he had been a close friend of Rice's for 20 years. A former bond trader, Leonard had worked in the business world with Rice.

Hmmmmm......this is getting interesting....

http://www.phillyfuture.org/node/3914

I hope they aren't actually keeping the proceeds of their sales, because they're committing fraud if they are. I checked out the paper; it's a regurgitation, albeit in slightly more sophisticated language, of Republican talking-points.

Some creatures should keep to the dark, damp recesses under the rocks...

'Bulletin' Hates Blacks, Quakers, Realtors

http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2007/05/post_19.html#more

Paul R:

"One way or another, the libertarian philosophy is based on what works best for those in privileged positions in privileged societies--or those who strongly identify with same, whether through wish-fulfillment fantasy, or other psychological mechanisms."

Studying work and organizational psychology. One of the coursebooks ”Muutospuhe” studies organizational life from the postmodern angle (in finnish – translation mine) :

”Organizational transition can be considered as rhetorical argumentation examined discoursive. In that case attention will be paid to how influential decision-makers succeed in presenting the changes in the surprising ways as if other alternatives would not be except as necessary also as unavoidable. This way the decision-makers harness the external factors and events inside the organisation as the foundation of their own fancies and their needs. In spite of the fact that this way the changes often proved to have been even harmful afterwards and quite troubling. The change can indeed be considered as a linguistic construction with the help of which the different actor quarters try to improve their own position.”

It is probably safe to suppose that in the society also the ones in a good position try to improve their own position with well financed linguistic constructions.

I hope they aren't actually keeping the proceeds of their sales, because they're committing fraud if they are. I checked out the paper; it's a regurgitation, albeit in slightly more sophisticated language, of Republican talking-points.

It should be interesting to watch...

I don't think I could stomach reading it, but reading about it when Rice gets hauled off to jail might be fun...

This is just pitiful drivel...

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18309846&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

Oh, this is hilarious. TR "[m]isinterpret[ed] normal business consolidation of major industries like oil, coal, railroads and finance for some kind of conspiracy, he became a trust buster, hamstringing the very businesses that were lowering prices and raising the standard of living of the ordinary American to unprecedented levels." Um...it was a conspiracy, as Ida Tarbell quite clearly pointed out. The "standard of living of the ordinary American" wasn't that great before TR, and wasn't that much better after him; but at least after TR left office you couldn't sell snake oil or foodstuffs full of poison...legally, anyhow.

This is also rich: "Ever since [the Great Society], conservative presidents have been content with attempting to keep the growth of government spending at the inflation level, having given up any real attempt at rolling back spending much less scrapping programs." Really? Is that why Nixon imposed price controls and Reagan ramped up military spending? If conservative presidents didn't scrap programs, then Clinton must have been a reactionary for signing the "welfare reform" bill. Oh, and Nixon is also responsible for the EPA, NOAA, Amtrak, the DEA (that must warm the cockles of Mr. Barron's heart), and SSI, among other things; or is Nixon not a true conservative?

Was that because he isn't a lunatic racist conspiracy theorist, or because the owner didn't pay him?

KD, have you got something to add in the way of clarification here, or would you rather just keep mum? Either way, it's gonna be a little awkward for you to continue posing as a William F. Buckley clone.

It would have been easy for Glenn to write an entire book on this topic, with each chapter covering some different "mainstream journalist" mocking democrats and the democratic party.

Olbermann is such a rare species in the stupid jungle that is our "press corps", that these idiots really don't know what to say about him.

He's so "unstupid" that it appears to them as bias.

This is a such a strange phenomenon.

And Aravosis did kiss Kurtz's ass, just like you might expect someone who wants to get invited back to do. It's such a shame that human beings are built like this.

ARAVOSIS: Why give Brit Hume the opportunity, is the point, Howie. You're -- some people -- some people say are you left, some people say are you right. I think are you fair. I do not think Brit Hume is fair. There's a difference.

Glenn - I think it's clear that Aravosis is using "you" meaning "any journalist one is considering evaluating", not Kurtz himself. Sorry, but I don't see any ambiguity in this. He is not referring to Kurtz, or he clearly would have said "....I think YOU ARE fair" in that word order.