Difference between revisions of "Talk:Columbia Daily Spectator"
Nateoxford (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 31684 by 68.4.185.169 (Talk)) |
(→On the Website...) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==On the Website...== | ==On the Website...== | ||
| − | No account of the Spec Website can be complete without ''some'' mention of the | + | 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) | *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)
