I cannot beleive you consider this, I suggest you watch the interview with the magazines editor when he gets dealt on LIVE TV because of his inaccurate headline. BABIES, LIES and SCANDALS. He admitted there were no lies and no scandals and basically put his tail between his legs when the pretty young lady interviewed him and called him out on MSNBC.

 

Impossible. MSNBC is part of the "left wing conspiracy".

Impossible. MSNBC is part of the "left wing conspiracy".

Do you know who Megyn Kelly is? :lol:

I quit buying alot of magazines years ago. I still have a family member who purchases OK magazine. I take the magazine to recycle and be polite. I've never purchased it and never will.

 

This guy Bradley Jacobs, got owned, by Megyn Kelly.

 

That guy's an idiot. What was he thinking by coming on there if he can't handle himself any better than that?

Looks like someone got their facts wrong. Only 1000 cancelations, but over 1000 new subscriptions. US Weekly broke even.

 

But hey, thanks for playing.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/report-us-weekly-losing-s_n_124243.html

Speaking of rags, Ladies and gentlemen, DD gives you a link to the Huffington Post

Speaking of rags, Ladies and gentlemen, DD gives you a link to the Huffington Post

 

Hey it's from a "well placed" source. How can that not be accurate?

Speaking of rags, Ladies and gentlemen, DD gives you a link to the Huffington Post

 

Facts are facts, no matter where you find them.

Speaking of rags, Ladies and gentlemen, DD gives you a link to the Huffington Post

 

Being printed in the Huffington Post or any other bias source does not make a fact less true or a falsity more true. See cch5432's posts here and here as an example of properly discrediting a false article. Notice how he didn't say the accusations weren't true because they appeared in the HP, but how he demonstrated they were not true based on factual analysis.

Being printed in the Huffington Post or any other bias source does not make a fact less true or a falsity more true. See cch5432's posts here and here as an example of properly discrediting a false article. Notice how he didn't say the accusations weren't true because they appeared in the HP, but how he demonstrated they were not true based on factual analysis.

The true circulation numbers will probably be unknown for some time. Quotes on a blog that cotes an unnamed "well known source" is not a fact it is an unsubtantiated rumor, especially since the Huffington Post has already been shown to the be source of at least one false allegation today.

The true circulation numbers will probably be unknown for some time. Quotes on a blog that cotes an unnamed "well known source" is not a fact it is an unsubtantiated rumor, especially since the Huffington Post has already been shown to the be source of at least one false allegation today.

 

 

Except....there was a reduction in funds for special needs programs.

 

Just a question of how they got there.

The true circulation numbers will probably be unknown for some time. Quotes on a blog that cotes an unnamed "well known source" is not a fact it is an unsubtantiated rumor, especially since the Huffington Post has already been shown to the be source of at least one false allegation today.

 

This is why the Newbuster linked MSNBC article quoting sources describing 10,000 cancellations is also a rumor. The point is, facts exists outside of these news outlets, and when they are known a comprehensive evaluation can be done. Until that point, it is impossible to say who is correct.

Except....there was a reduction in funds for special needs programs.

 

Just a question of how they got there.

There does not appear to be any question about how the special needs cuts got there. The article was wildly inaccurate and misleading, which was its purpose. I have always found that when I find myself deep in a hole, the best first course of action is to stop digging. :lol:

 

The original US subscription cancellations were reported by MSNBC, not a particularly reliable source, but the Huffington Post is a bottom feeder in the pool of truth.

This is why the Newbuster linked MSNBC article quoting sources describing 10,000 cancellations is also a rumor. The point is, facts exists outside of these news outlets, and when they are known a comprehensive evaluation can be done. Until that point, it is impossible to say who is correct.

I agree but despite my low opinion of MSNBC, I hold them in considerably higher esteem than Arianna Huffington and her blog. Given the free publicity that the magazine is getting and the potential value of the issue featuring the Palin smear as a collectors' item, I expect that US will report an increase in sales, if not subscriptions.

Really? That's the angle you're taking? Seriously. Think.

That ain't going to happen anytime soon.