Professor who hates Republicans claims to object to headline, ‘It’s Okay to Hate Republicans’

National Review Online’s Katherine Timpf, for example, noticed an article published this week on the lefty In These Times website titled, “It’s Okay to Hate Republicans.” Not surprisingly, the author was an educator: Susan J. Douglas, professor of communications and department chair at the University of Michigan. The introductory paragraph says just about all you need to know about the piece:

I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood.”

…In the meantime, “In These Times” reposted Douglas’ piece under its original (and safer) print version headline, “We Can’t All Just Get Along,” adding an editor’s note that — get this — “the author rejects the online title as not representative of the piece or its main points”…

Share
  • The tolerant left.

    • Frau Katze

      Also very illogical.

    • Clausewitz

      I don’t hate all democrats. Just the ones who open their mouths.

  • Just a thought

    The less sense they make, the happier they are.

  • Just a thought

    ” I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa…” – Real Republicans can’t stand their reaching across the aisle to give them more of America’s treasure to squander. either.

  • AlanUK

    “… “the author rejects the online title as not representative of the piece or its main points”…”

    Just to put things into context …

    In the UK press (and I would guess elsewhere) there is a sub-editor who reads the written piece and attaches a snappy headline (and sub-heading in smaller type) if needed). This is there to attract the passing reader and as such tends to be written in provocative language and will reflect the viewpoint of the main Editor and or owner. Sometimes, from my UK experience, it has little to do with the author’s piece and may be directly contradicted in the body of the text.

    As far as I understand it, the author/reporter is not consulted and either accepts it or finds work elsewhere. Indeed, you often need to read right through to the end to get a more balanced view. From my experience, the UK Daily Mail has this failing, particularly in the paper version. It rarely lies but you often have to go right through for the balance (which, as I said) may be different from the title.