This little report is interesting in a few ways, but the most important is that it seems to show that the publishers of at least one American newspaper are wholly ignorant of American history. It seems that early last week the Warren Times Observer of Warren, Pennsylvania published an ad that basically expressed a desire to see President Barack Obama assassinated and they didn't even know it.
The small town paper published an ad that read as follows: "May Obama follow in the steps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy!" Sadly, the paper's editors completely missed the salient fact that all these historical presidents -- except for Obama -- were assassinated in office!
By Friday, the paper printed an apology and told the AP that it had turned over all relevant info to the Secret Service.
This incident does not speak well for the historical education of the folks that run the Warren Times Observer, for sure. Unfortunately, this historical ignorance raises the suspicion that the entire newspaper industry suffers from the same fate.
Lastly, it is a damning commentary on the end product of our schools if even the employees of a newspaper -- an entity that is supposed to be one of the informers of the nation -- are so ignorant of history that this obvious, less than thinly veiled threat to Obama's life so easily flew over their heads.
And this is not even to mention the sad fact that an American would wish for the assassination of a president enough to place such an ad in the first place!
Yes, it's a sad commentary all around.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Perhaps they want Biden or
May 30, 2009 - 02:34 ET by Dan The Man 2Perhaps they want Biden or even more scary Paloosi. Sure it wasnt an April Fools joke or an early Halloween?
Who wants Biden or Pelosi?
May 30, 2009 - 03:11 ET by shawn228I thought they just wanted to wish harm on Obama?
He had my vote
Well Warner
May 30, 2009 - 03:03 ET by shawn228I am glad that you acknowledged the main point of the story is that is sad that anyone would wish our President was harmed. I do not believe that one small town newspaper speaks for the rest of the press in this country.
He had my vote
Um...
May 30, 2009 - 03:24 ET by Warner Todd HustonWhere did I say this paper "speaks for the rest of the press in this country"? I said it is indicative of their stupidity, but I made no claim that they speak for anyone but themselves.
Be sure and visit my home blog PubliusForum.com.
Wait a second
May 30, 2009 - 05:14 ET by danebramageThis was an ad. It was placed by a private party. The paper did not write the content. The guilty parties are in the advertising department of the paper, not the news or editorial departments, and anyone who knows anything about newspapers knows that the ad department is not typically composed of history majors (not that it should require that in order to know which American Presidents were assassinated). Ad departments are composed of Joe and Suzie Sixpack off the street, just like your average McDonald's is. So being surprised that some dummy in the ad department wouldn't know about Garfield and McKinley (because I imagine that's where the actual stumbling block was) is like being surprised that the cashier at McDonald's doesn't know it. At worst, the paper is guilty of not "vetting," or overseeing, its ads containing political content well enough by the news & editorial side of the house.
In my opinion, this is a non-story as far as the paper is concerned. I'd be more interested in knowing about the person who placed the ad.
Brain damaged indeed
May 30, 2009 - 05:59 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWell 'brain damaged', in my opinion your comment is a non-comment as far as I can see. I just bought an Egg McMuffin and paid the retired History professor who now works as a cashier at McDonalds to cover loose ends and pass the time with his peers whilst he informed me he knew all about this ad and it's implications.
So there.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Okay, let's play
May 30, 2009 - 07:26 ET by danebramageI'm not a troll, genius. Are you new around here?
That aside, I don't even know what you're trying to say. A retired History professor working at McDonalds knew about the ad and its implications? What "implications" are you talking about?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out to me what is false in what I wrote. Are you claiming that the ad was written by the journalists at the paper?
With you, I am done!!
May 30, 2009 - 08:07 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsOh, yes I am new around here and am breathlessly waiting for thou to teacheth me all the rules and regulations I need to know in order to conform to your little cyber world. I shall return to McDonalds tomorrow as they are giving out free advanced calculus lessons with every Happy Meal and I need to keep up with the likes of you.
Not!
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Isn't it CONVENIENT how
May 30, 2009 - 07:46 ET by MazziIsn't it CONVENIENT how this guy just "happened" to meet a retired history professor at a McDonalds, serving Egg McMuffins? This retired professor stopped serving the customers to strike up a long conversation with our poster, wherein they discussed his personal history prior to being an Egg McMuffin cashier, the poster happened to bring up an obscure little story, and the professor (naturally) knew all about it. Or did the professor of McMuffinry bring up the story, since it was obvious that the poster/customer was such an educated and intelligent man?
I bet some of the poster's best friends are gay (or black or hispanic or whatever).
(By the way D.F.T.T. - using the word "whilst" doesn't make you sound smart. It makes you sound pretentious, especially when you are telling such an improbable tale.)
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
whilst
May 30, 2009 - 17:34 ET by CiampinoThere's nothing wrong with whilst.
United Kingdom and the USA - two countries separated by a common language.
Your assessment of who
May 30, 2009 - 07:38 ET by MazziYour assessment of who works in a newspaper advertising department is correct, but it is BEYOND shameful that these (presumably) high-school graduates do not know basic US history after 12 years of public education. My German -born and -educated husband immediately knew what the association between the 4 presidents was.
How much do you want to bet that these employees know how to put a condom on a banana?
I will assume that the more educated editors and writers probably (only probably) had a better chance of catching that reference, but that is not the point. Why should one have to go beyond 12 years of school to finally get the basics? And to be honest - I think I would have made the connection in 5th grade, but that was 30 years ago.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
...
May 30, 2009 - 07:55 ET by danebramageOh, I totally agree with you, Mazzi. I wasn't trying to excuse anyone's ignorance. I was simply pointing out that the article as written seems to suggest either that the newspaper was up to no good, or that it was the journalists and editors there who were completely ignorant of American history. But those aren't the only possible explanations. The most probable explanation is that the ad was accepted by Suzie Sixpack in the ad department and wasn't properly checked out by somebody who knew their a** from a hole in the ground before being published.
That's all I'm saying.
EDIT: And my comment below about Suzie maybe not being American was said from my California perspective: out here there's a very, very good chance that Suzie's real name is Maria, she's from Guadalajara, Mexico, and she has no idea whatsoever about any American President's name prior to Bush and Obama, much less their manner of death.
I'm from Warren, and though
May 30, 2009 - 09:03 ET by sublight68I'm from Warren, and though I now live a couple of hours away I read the WTO when I go home to visit.
The daily paper is a thin collection of wire reports with few local stories beyond high school sports. You can cruise through it in 10 minutes, spending most of that time on the funny page. No Sunday edition. The offices are in a tiny building and I doubt they have much in the way of staff.
I'm more curious as to who placed the ad -- that's where the ignorance (or malice) lies. Chances are the ad came in, got minimal if any review by someone making minimum wage, and went to press.
Completely agree, sublight...
May 30, 2009 - 22:56 ET by JerCompletely agree, sublight...
The proof readers are checking copy for obvious typos, omissions, profanity, etc. and are not being paid to "catch" slightly obtuse, latently malicious historical associations submitted by a scumbag.
Jer
Scumbag huh? Why is
May 31, 2009 - 03:01 ET by Dan The Man 2Scumbag huh? Why is that? It was a private ad and who knows what the ad meant. Lincoln and Kennedy did some big things that benefited the country so maybe teh ad poster meant for Obama to do something good instead of killing teh country.
"Scumbag" was actually
May 31, 2009 - 03:12 ET by Jer"Scumbag" was actually being too kind in describing this cretin. But your absurdly naive view is duly noted, as well as your implicit accusation that Warner doesn't know what he is talking about.
Jer
According to the paper it
May 31, 2009 - 07:07 ET by sublight68According to the paper it was a classified ad:
http://www.timesobserver.com/page/content.detail/id/517161.html?nav=5006
Haven't found the actual wording yet. I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the form of a "Happy Ad", personal classifieds where you wish people happy birthday, congratulations, good luck, etc.
Not that it makes it any better, but it was one idiot with an individual classified not a local business or organization with a space ad.
The reviewer probably just zips through looking for vulgaraties without really paying attention to the actual content.
No way
May 30, 2009 - 05:11 ET by Captain KirockI'm not buying this. Anyone with an 8th grade education knows that all these men were shot while in office. No one is that stupid.
Oh wait, we are talking about journalists, right?
Well...
May 30, 2009 - 05:20 ET by danebramageNo, we're not. And in this day and age, they might not have even been American. See my post above yours.
So the death of Bush is ok I guess.
May 30, 2009 - 07:59 ET by ArchConservativeSo people can openly wish for the assination and make a movie of the killing of a sitting President like George W Bush and wish for the death of a sitting Vice President like Dick Cheney and that's ok. But now somehow this is worse? Celebrities and reporters can wish openly for the death of Clarence Thomas but this is worse? They chuckle and laugh about those things but this is worthy of information being given to the Secret Service?
I think the right thing was done here but what about all those others who should have been put in JAIL for their behaviours? Nothing was done to them and they were actually called "clever" and "funny" and "on the edge". Makes me sick.
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
Obama: Not my President. Ever.
It's all detestable, but
May 30, 2009 - 08:19 ET by danebramageI doubt the case will go anywhere. The guy who placed the ad seemed to be simply wishing for O's assassination, which can be construed as simply wishing for his death the way the lefties do with Bush, Cheney, and most of the rest of mankind. I don't know exactly what the law is, but I think you pretty much have to openly advocate and/or foster some kind of assassination movement for it to be illegal.
What do you think the
May 30, 2009 - 08:41 ET by ArchConservativeWhat do you think the HuffPos were advocating for 8 years? When journalists say that they hope that Clarence Thomas' wife kills him off early that isn't openly advocating? When celebrities on talk shows talk happily about their wish for the death of W or Cheney that isn't openly advocating? This country that I love, now has me about to vomit on a daily basis.
That happens on all sides
May 30, 2009 - 09:18 ET by CacciatoThat happens on all sides of the aisle.
Heck, there's a poster on this site named Kennedy Death Watch for crying out loud.
Cacciato
May 30, 2009 - 09:29 ET by botgthat poster is most likely a plant from the left
and his SN has been widely disapproved of here
Huffpo is lauded by the left, that's a huge difference
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
standards
May 30, 2009 - 08:02 ET by jaywlOver the past 40 years I have watched as a decline in standards has supplied another nail in the coffin containing our newspapers. I believe the education I received in high school must be the equal of today's college, at least in the English department. I had four years of exacting work at one high school in Virginia during the early sixties. When, in the late '70s I studied for an AA in journalism (only because of an unfocused and wandering mind), I knew the students around me received very little of that rigorous preparation. The decline in newspaper standards across the country is obvious to all. I'm sure anyone that reads NB knows exactly what I mean; idiotic headlines, misspellings, wrong word usage, bias (unprofessional journalism by definition), and, as this ad reflects, the lack of a broad education that once was a basic requirement of all in the newspaper business. All this is another sad commentary on a declining industry.
How nice, too bad the SS won't be able to do anything about this
May 30, 2009 - 08:05 ET by Lord ErondThere's no direct threat on the President's life, there's not even a statement about which aspect of these president's administrations he wants Obama to fall in the footsteps of. Sure there's an implication that he would like the President to be assassinated but there's no direct proof that he would do it himself.
This newspaper is just mad because they were too stupid to remember their history.
"Let him who would move the world, first move himself." -Socrates
"We sit together, the mountain and I, until only the mountain remains." -Li Po
I am baffled at the attempt
May 30, 2009 - 09:07 ET by CacciatoI am baffled at the attempt of the author to make a big deal over what is obviously a blatant mistake made by some tiny paper in some po'dunk northwestern PA town.
I would be willing to bet a sizable portion of Americans do NOT know about the assassinations of McKinley and Garfield.
Some of the responses about the sad state of the media in America based on this obvious ADVERISING oversight are even more baffling.
I can't wait for your thorough analysis of the liberal slant in the Palm Beach Retirement Home Weekly Reader.
Evaluate educational systems
May 30, 2009 - 09:40 ET by republicguardOur educational system has changed to ensure passing of standardized tests. The tests ensure attainment of basic knowledge levels, but leaves little time for anything else. People from different areas around the nation are presented education based on cirriculum, which varies. What they take from that information is very much individualized, which is why grades A - F are utilized. Many individuals know more about TV stars and what the media feeds them than actual history and facts.
re: Evaluate educational systems
May 30, 2009 - 17:31 ET by CiampinoGood comments RG.
"The tests ensure attainment of basic knowledge levels, ...."
I take exception to the inclusion of the word 'ensure' - nothing of the sort as today's graduates lack those basic skills. I saw a good cartoon where an irate parent confronts a college administrator and wants to know why Susy, who had a 4.0 GPA and straight-As in Math in high school, is now in the remedial Math class.
Also most grading is done using a curve so no one actually gets an absolute grade as in the 'old days'.
Try giving someone a D and wait for the repercussions.
ex-long time College Prof.
What Happened To The First Amendment?
May 30, 2009 - 11:30 ET by zeestephenDesiring the death of Obama is clearly a bad thing.
However, I can recall several published incidents where Left Side bloggers expressed the same sentiment about George Bush, and the Mainstream Media completely ignored it.
Legally, to just wish for someone's death is not a threat or an incitement to do harm to that person.
Howard Stern, while using the public airways, on several occasions said, "I pray for his (or her) death."
The ACLU backed Stern up on this at least once, and to my knowledge Stern was never punished or reprimanded by any government entity.
I know Warner's main point here is the historical ignorance of the editor at this small paper.
But an important secondary point is that MSM outrage depends entirely on the political beliefs of the person who has been targeted.
Non Story
May 30, 2009 - 11:44 ET by pgrossjrdo you really think anybody other than some copy editor in the ad department looked at this? no doubt a product of our wonderful public school system, her only thought was "neat, someone else loves Obama too!" The only history taught today is how the evil white christian european males have ruined what was a wonderful peaceful place prior to their arrival.
This doesn't speak at all to
May 30, 2009 - 11:48 ET by balboaThis doesn't speak at all to the education of the publishers of this paper. It speaks to either the education OR attention to detail of most likely ONE underpaid, bored person just trying to mock up the classifieds so they can get home to watch SportsCenter.
Projection
May 30, 2009 - 11:51 ET by slickwillie2001There's been far more fear-mongering assassination talk from the lefty loons than anything from the right; this is liberal projection. Conservatives believe in law and order and most assassinationa and attempts on Presidents come from the left.
PS If you like those merged-photos, here's one that gives the lefties nightmares: Obushama
It is pathetic that someone
May 30, 2009 - 11:54 ET by Free StinkerIt is pathetic that someone would joke about harming POTUS.
Just as pathetic, when the MSM ignored that people were making those kinds of "jokes" about Bush.
They didn't just ignore it.
May 30, 2009 - 12:49 ET by ArchConservativeThey didn't just ignore it. They hailed it. They enjoyed it. They revelled in it. They said that this was what the 1st Amendment was all about. The vicious rhetoric and hatefullness of the left, even though they are in power now, is just as bad if not worse.
When Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, we were "extremists", "nazi-like", and running an un-American "regime". Now reverse that and with them running the same three areas of government, it's "a good balance" and "returning to normalcy". The press and the MSM along with those at HuffPo are the most ignorant, hateful, intolerant individuals in the American political spectrum. They elected the President not because of what he stood for, but because of his skin color. They are having orgasms with this new nominee for the Supreme Court not because of her past, but because of her skin color. This is the exact opposite of what Martin Luther King, Jr. wanted but the left embraces it.
So here would be my
May 30, 2009 - 20:23 ET by GregESo here would be my question to the boobs that wrote that....
Lincoln and Kennedy are very well known presidents. Garfield and McKinley, most Americans wouldn't even know they WERE presidents......so to say may Obama follow in the footsteps of those four, just what exactly did you have in mind as the underlying idea of the statement?
I'd be VERY interested to hear the answer to that. (Unless I myself am lacking in knowledge of something that does tie the 4 together in another significant way, which is quite possible.)
Presidential Future
June 1, 2009 - 09:11 ET by trhugT.R. Huggins
I wouldn't waste resources and effort to make a martyr of our present president. Although I think a "dirty" nuke on DC would almost be worth the effort. Barring acts of God, our nation will cease to exist as a world influence.
We have used our "roman candle". All that's left is smoke and a bad smell. GLH