What newspaper (ie new york times, the Washington post) do you find preposterous?

Answer 1

Better than the Neocon controlled rags. Many people never see any thing but local Papers, usually owned by Scripps.
A closed mind is just that; closed tighter than a bull's butt in fly time, wouldn't matter much what it read.
Better to read a variety and consider all the information, then to only read what appeals to your mind set.

Answer 2

New York Times are traitors, if they get their hand on secret information they will print it again they hate this country and what it stand for and they hate the Bush administration, so because of their hate they would rather sell out our country to get even with Bush, that is more important than the safety of the American people and their own families. Sad. I don't think the Washington post is that bad yet. But all these newspapers are ran by liberals. so what dose that say.

Answer 3

Yeah, I'd have to go with the Times. The editorial board is completely out of touch.

The Times is "liberal," I guess - but it's a clueless type of elitist liberalism. For example, a few years ago, they were doing this series on "The Neediest Cases," these weepy stories about poor people and how welfare reform has screwed them, etc.

Then, in the same issue, they had a big spread about the caviar and foie gras industries! Talk about dillholes...

Love, Jack.

Answer 4

The National Inquierer

Answer 5

People still read newspapers? Hmm...When will technology actually be taken advantage of. Still, I think the New York Times is "preposterous" because it has too much un-necessary popularity.

Answer 6

The Birmingham News in Birmingham, Alabama.
It's a conservative newsrag of mediocre quality.

Answer 7

The NY times tops the list in my opinion.

Answer 8

most of them

Answer 9

ugh. i can't think of the name of it (damn xanax!). it's national... not the inquirer (that's obvious)... AH! USA today! it's CRAP!