Printable View
7. The story about the President.
8. Yes.
9. Neither. I don't read crime novels.
10. Neither is higher art, you can't compare two different mediums like that.
11. I guess I can't answer this question as accurately as Klosterman would like because I don't get feelings like that and I don't believe other people get feelings like that. So, I would continue watching the movie.
12. None, because I wouldn't be carrying cash around in downtown Chicago.
7. The story on Sasquatch. Newspapers report on facts. Both Sasquatch and Loch Ness, though laughably unlikely, in this situation are both proven as fact. The President *may* have cancer and is having a biopsy. Not only is it extremely unlikely that the minutia of the President's health be divulged at all, but it is a statement on an unknown (With few details, and no photo.)
Having established that a fact is better than the possibility of fact, what makes Sasquatch more important? He's a more American phenomenon. Loch Ness is in Scotland, far away from NY and far from the awareness of many Americans. It's important but not front page.
EDIT: The question states the Pacific Northwest. In this situation it's difficult to tell. I'm tempted to say the President's story now but I still think there aren't enough relevant facts.
Except a shitload of legal rights. But those don't matter, so yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
I'd run the story on Sasquatch, both because of what TrialSword mentioned, and because it might tie into a missing-link story from cavemen to people.
Sasquatch is clearly is the largest story, all three deserve front page.