The Roanoke Times has an article up today. Im not going to post the name of it, but you'll know it when you see it.
My issue is not that they publish the article, its how Reed Williams (who Im sure will be getting alot of mail soon) and the Higher-ups at the Times allow details which have nothing to do with the simple reporting of the story to get in the way.
I could have edited this article down to about 3 lines, informative but not rife with details.
Personally, this speaks to me of some low-class work. Poorly written, poorly structured, and oh, the headline. Thats going to stick in the minds of many for a while.
#1 Daily Newspaper (in areas with newspapers, readers, and competition among newspapers - 2 out of 3 the times does not have) in the USA? Not like this.
My issue is not that they publish the article, its how Reed Williams (who Im sure will be getting alot of mail soon) and the Higher-ups at the Times allow details which have nothing to do with the simple reporting of the story to get in the way.
I could have edited this article down to about 3 lines, informative but not rife with details.
Personally, this speaks to me of some low-class work. Poorly written, poorly structured, and oh, the headline. Thats going to stick in the minds of many for a while.
#1 Daily Newspaper (in areas with newspapers, readers, and competition among newspapers - 2 out of 3 the times does not have) in the USA? Not like this.
2 comments:
Apparently you are referring to the dog abuse story. Truly the Roanoke Times is a cancer in Roanoke.
I guess that is why they are number 1, they apply to every kind in Roanoke, and some will love this story.
Post a Comment