Difference between revisions of "Talk:Columbia Daily Spectator"
(→On the Website...) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:That's my tendency to editorialize shining through again! {{User:Reaganaut/sig}} 14:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT) | :That's my tendency to editorialize shining through again! {{User:Reaganaut/sig}} 14:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==On the Website...== | ||
| + | No account of the Spec Website can be complete without ''some'' mention of the 2009 Spec website takedown incident. [[User:Nateoxford|Nateoxford]] 21:56, 19 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *please do not delete content randomly. [[User:Nateoxford|Nateoxford]] 12:44, 15 January 2010 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:00, 8 February 2011
Broadsheet v. Tabloid
I don't think there's universal pro-tabloid sentiment. I like that the Spec looks as professional as a "real" paper like the NYT, or at least like the other Ivy dailies. I shudder to remember what it was like back in 2003. Pacman 14:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
- That's my tendency to editorialize shining through again! − Reaganaut 14:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
On the Website...
No account of the Spec Website can be complete without some mention of the 2009 Spec website takedown incident. Nateoxford 21:56, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
- please do not delete content randomly. Nateoxford 12:44, 15 January 2010 (EST)
