I went with a friend to Burger King thsi morning -- he wanted breakfast, I would have preferred not being in the parking lot much less eating -- and bought a medium coffee. Here's my interpretation of BK coffee: brew coffee in a pot as you normally would, fill 1/3 of a mug with it, then add water until the cup is full. It was hot water with a hint of coffee. Or maybe I just make mine so ridiculously potent that "normal" coffee tastes like piss. Either way, Burger King gained no ground (ground -- get it?) on my quality-o-meter.
Ian wrote a post this week about an "article" in The Daily Advertiser concerning the resignation (shit-canning baby!) of Donald Rumsfeld. It contained reactions from locals and semi-locals about said resignation -- an algonquin roundtable of brainiacs no doubt. But these people had no bona-fides whatsoever. None that were listed, at any rate. At face value they were Joe-shmoes off the street. Or perhaps cousins of the author.
I was co-editor of my high school newspaper my junior year, and interviewing a Biology teacher about the marching band wouldn't fly. Maybe it's not an official rule in journalism that you garner reactions from people somehow tied to the subject, but at the very least it is common sense.
So my question is: what the fuck is up with The Advertiser? I've never exactly been floored by its informative acumen, but especailly lately they've been publishing these completely unfounded and nonsensical commentaries, authored by the paper itself or guest "columnists" whose credentials are also unknown. Is this a new practice or has the rag always been this insulting to its readers' intelligence? I never read it to gain any real insight, but I do like to keep my finger at least somewhat on the pulse.
I'll say it again: unless it's printed on softer paper I wouldn't wipe my arse with The Advertiser.