See complete forecast
You are not logged in. (Log in • Create account)
9 January 2013 at 2:22 p.m.
At this point, I am wondering what degree and/or type of research Ms. Nicks has completed for her statement about the types of cheating men do versus women or to be an expert in this area whatsoever? This is just another poor example of a column in the CDP that has no relevance to the positive growth of Craig and certainly shows the author's choice of this subject in light of recent events to be a poor decision. Does the paper have so little ability to get decent commentary as to seriously give this much column space to this type of blathering? I feel as though I am in a hair salon or listening to a bunch of high school girls giving their opinion on a subject in which they have no background to give relevant commentary on a subject. Again, no Pulitzer Prize writing here.
9 January 2013 at 4:54 p.m.
justiceortruth - I think you have completely misidentified the problem here. The CDP is merely a reflection of the community it represents. You pose the question “Does the paper have so little ability to get decent commentary as to seriously give this much column space to this type of blathering?”
The answer is a resounding yes. The bulk of letters they receive are incoherently ignorant, much like many members of the community. The news in Craig is slow moving and infrequent. The paper's budget is miniscule.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of smart, capable, great people in Craig. But let's be honest - the letters to the editor accurately reflect the majority of the community. It's not the paper's fault that Craig is filled with halfwits.
10 January 2013 at 10:41 a.m.
@ Buff_bronc_fan - Whilst I agree with all of your points, it still saddens me that we allow the witch hunts to continue through the use of the 'Letters to the Editor' section with the sole purpose it seems is to destroy career(s) or person(s) and the endless silly columns about nothing of relevance have become tiring.
My comment regarding the budget of the paper would be along the idea of 'you get what you pay for' as few advertisers want to invest in a medium that gives back so little return and is so toxic.
17 January 2013 at 11:38 p.m.
I find the it less than tasteful, so i don't read it.
or see results without voting.
This site is best viewed with
or the latest version of Internet Explorer
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.