Media

I like the concept.  So we could reword the issue as follows:

Which daily newspaper has the best financial coverage?

We thus concentrate on the substance and not the form.  We could equally create other similar issues, such as "Which daily newspaper has the best international affairs coverage?"   and so on......

lets approve.

Didn't Politico pick it up too?  Yeah, I know, hold off.  But it's totally unofficially official.  I mean, come on. 

It's not official yet... so we're holding off until the announcement... every article about the choice has attributed it to the HuffPost article... which only quotes unnamed sources... we shouldn't jump the gun just because they all are trying to cover their arses.

Yeah, it's terrible, terrible.  But then, that whole format is going to go the way of the dinosaur, so.

 @ Mike D, I know, he's soooo utterly generic, zero stage presence, you just don't ask that critical question, "Hey, who is this guy!?"  Who finds him sexy or clever or strong.  He's a marmy mess, a big bore.  I'm dying to know what his testing numbers were.  I just cannot believe that zucker would approve on gut or because he's a built in name brand.  Maddow and Olberman can generate the ratings that Russert did, I can't this reporter doing the same.  of course, if they had ANY sense they would hire David Muir.....OH. MY. GOD!!   

Ugh.  Gregory. It's a done deal, is it not? Gawker's Alex Pareene:

The late Tim Russert was no prize either, friends. But Gregory is just... kind of annoying.

He's full of himself—you have to be to pull those Sam Donaldson stunts with Ari Fleischer—but has never really demonstrated a great intellect. He's never proved himself as an interviewer, which leads us to believe he'll just pull the "the research team dug up a quote from you that slightly contradicts some other thing you said" card way too often. But he's tall!

Geoff just solidified my point, because I wasn't being very clear (sorry!)... I'm not saying the NYTimes is a "financial newspaper", but there's a reason it's main competition is the WSJ and vice versa... it's because the WSJ isn't considered a "financial newspaper" either anymore. It's just a newspaper.

I'd rather us have this issue as "financial news coverage" because eventually people will be able to write in their favorite anyway...

it's not necessary to label the pubs as being "financial newspapers" - NYT certainly wouldn't be classified as such. But WSJ isn;t either. They have a World issue covering everything from Guantanamo to Mumbai.

If we phrase it as "financial coverage" we're focusing it on the business side. Is WSJ, FT and IBD that superior to NYT? If so, then we can exclude it, but I tend to think that NYT's coverage in any section - sports, arts, metro, business - is up there with the best no matter what. Could be wrong about business though.

I am not sure we can consider The New York Times a "financial newspaper" anymore than say, USA Today, the Washington Post etc.  I would limit the options in this issue to the three indicated below.

 lol, i saw the wording on my profile tab (which no longer seems to work--it's gone 404).  Anyway, I was like ~meow~!  I didn't want people thinkin' I was dissin' a sister.