Virtual Front Page, Friday, April 2, 2010

Sorry about not posting a front page yesterday, but I just couldn’t find time. The next few days will be crazy as I try to post everything I need to before the election. But here, on this Good Friday, is one front for you:

  1. S.C. inks $12.7M deal with Pfizer — This is over illegal drug promotions that “that plied doctors with free golf, massages, and resort junkets.”
  2. Obama Takes Job-Creation Message to Charlotte — The president came almost to South Carolina to tell workers “We’ve broken this slide.” And maybe he’s got a point, given, this next piece of news…
  3. Job Market Brightens as U.S. Payrolls Surge in March — The lede of the NYT story says, “The clouds have parted.”
  4. Pope’s preacher compares abuse row to anti-Semitism — This is an interesting coincidence. This afternoon, at Good Friday services, I was rejoicing that, after two millennia, we’ve finally gotten over praying for the conversion of the Jews. Today, we said, “Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.”
  5. Columbia police chief disputes Benjamin’s claim — Chief Tandy Carter calls into doubt an anecdote the mayoral candidate has been using to illustrate public safety problems.
  6. Bus service drives District 4 debate — I wouldn’t normally put a single-district contest on the front, but this has gotten so little exposure, and deserves more (which I’ve been trying to rectify with my interviews with Leona Plaugh and Tony Mizzell, and my yet-to-be-reported interviews — watch for them tomorrow — with Kevin Fisher and Mary Baskin Waters).

3 thoughts on “Virtual Front Page, Friday, April 2, 2010”

  1. Kathryn Fenner

    Sure, it’s the same thing to gas 6MM Jews as it is to write news articles and editorials. What’s the big diff between a pogrom and some riffs from Jon Stewart.

    As PR, and as theological guidance–FAIL

  3. Brad Warthen

    I almost put that on the front, but it didn’t quite make it for a couple of reasons — it wasn’t an unusual move for the gov, being a natural outgrowth of his libertarianism, and this sort of thing is usually overridden.

    Personally, I haven’t studied the issue closely enough to decide whether THIS time the governor is actually defending an important civil liberty. Unfortunately, the governor saying he is doing so is not helpful; he says that about everything. The fact that Joe Riley disagrees with him indicates to me that this is another case of the governor crying wolf — Joe doesn’t take a position unless he’s thought it out thoroughly, and is NOT blinded by ideology, which makes his testimony credible — but I don’t know for sure.

Comments are closed.