That's really disturbing.

OK, I'll bite -- I'll defend the Post.

Hey, I don't have a problem with a little flag-waving. (After all, it's the U.S. Constitution that gives us freedom of the press, not a UN screed. I'm an American before I'm a newsman.)

The heds may seem over the top, but tabs have that sort of attitude, and it shouldn't come as any surprise. Whether I like it or not means nothing -- it's in the Post's DNA.

As for the op-ed, hey, it's the paper's opinion. They can say whatever they want. It's a free country. You don't like what the Post is doing, go buy The New York Times, which in last Sunday's Canadian terror plot story buried the first mention of an extremist islamist connection way down on the jump page (Come on, NYT -- call a spade a spade, already).

Sometimes, reality is disturbing, whether we like it or not. The pictures of those Blackwater employees hanging from the bridge should have outraged us more than they did. The images of the beheadings should have done more than made us roll our eyes. And the memory of Sept. 11's attacks seem more like a distant memory for many Americans, who don't have an attention span to save their lives. Not to mention the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act, which like sheep, many Americans have just accepted, unquestioning and trusting a paternalistic government (and never mind the Congress, which didn't even read the legislation before passing it). Those are the things that as reporters, editors, photographers and designers, we should really find disturbing.

(OK, how did this become a soapbox under my feet?)

I love the Post, it's better than The Onion on most days!

Can we talk about the Time magazine cover? Interesting what people though, if it plays well, etc. I'm a fan, but I thikn the historical connection might be a bit much. Wondering what other people thought.

Matt would be referring to this.

Don't forget Saddam got the same thing:
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101030421,00.html

Looks like the same X, too.

Boy, that big red X, over and over, sure is irritating. . .

But back to the original topic, for once, I agree with Doug. :-P The Post hails from a proud, irreverent NY tabloid tradition, shared by my former employer the Daily News, in which you can refer to the mayor as "Hizzoner" in a headline. People don't expect too much of it-- just like I don't expect much out of US Weekly, but it's fun to read when that's what I'm in the mood for.

The virgins on the front make it clear that if you're not ready for a jingoistic slant on your news, buy something else to read on the train. (Somehow, I doubt many did.)

I agree with the defenders. The Post does what it does, and more power to them. It's an entertaining read, and that's why it's the #1 circulation newspaper in NYC. But nobody should mistake the Post as a source for responsible journalism.

Peter, interesting remark, but here's a question: How do you know you're not getting responsible journalism because it's presented with some attitude?

I agree with all of the Post defenders. It's their paper and they can write or present what they want. Do they have a slant on the news? Ya better believe it!...but...as Doug points out...JUST because they have a slant does not mean their content IS NOT credible. Having worked around the horn at ALL of NY's major dailies (Post, Times, Daily News & Newsday), I can tell you the Post's editorial staff religiously does more legwork and digging than the other three COMBINED, especially on Metro. Only the Daily News comes close, and many times they give up along the way. The Times? No contest - They read the Post and re-write it for the next day's edition. Ditto for Newsday.

The Post will take a national or international story and spin it in a way its readers expect - TOTALLY OUT OF LEFT FIELD !(or should I say RIGHT field for their political views?). That incongruous turn leaves many of us at so-called "responsible, content oriented news outlets" puzzled and scratching our heads.

Not so for the average subway rider in NY...or the wanna-be actress reading it in LA..or the retiree in Florida. The Post's appeal is in fact a national fungus that has grown on us all.

Peter is correct in pointing out the Post's readership penetration in New York. Far ahead of the The International (er, New York) Times.

Of course the Post can do what they want and the Post might be very popular. But that doesn't mean that their treatment of the news or this particular subject is good journalism. I'm with Tim. I find it disturbing.