If I were a more virtuous person, I would set aside an hour every day to read The New York Times with the focus and diligence due this hallowed medium. Indeed, every time I read the odd article, I am enthralled with the quality of the writing and the pure enjoyment gleaned from its overall excellence. One may assume the same pleasure listening to NPR--the subjects are sometimes obscure, but thoughtful crafting of each story and the perfection of their unfolding make them satisfying and pleasurable in every respect. It's poetry.

But who has the time?

Instead, I take the lazy man's approach and purchase that bastion of right wing sloppy yellow journalism, The New York Post. God help me. It is a ratty piece of work, I confess. The use of poor English, the admittedly clever wordplay of the headlines, the unflattering photographs...all hallmarks of this wretched journal. I daresay it is one step up from The National Enquirer. But to its credit, it has been publishing since 1801 and it does provide you some basic facts of national and world events in the course of a 38 minute subway ride to work. And well, I do have a soft spot for Page Six.

The columnists are particularly dreadful. In their righteous condemnation of local policy or Democrats, they are contentious to the extreme. The use of photographs in The Post is particularly unpleasant, whether a crime scene aftermath or grieving widows reaching heavenward or victims in their hospital beds staring blankly at the lens. It's pure tabloid journalism. And I've never read an issue that didn't feature the word "PERV" in a headline.

If you know what to expect, you can appreciate the pure campiness of this periodical. I was particularly interested in their coverage of the James Brown memorial at The Apollo and the execution of Saddam Hussein, both topics that I knew would garner a cover story and a 4 color spread. Oh, yeah.

Friday's cover featured a color photograph of Mr. Brown laid out in his coffin at the Apollo Theater. That's always a bit hard to look at., but you know that's not enough for The Post. Somehow they managed to photograph the man in his coffin from overhead and close up, showing every last detail. Mr. Brown looks like a taxidermist got to him, not an embalmer. In fact, he looks a little like Michael Jackson with a tan. I think this is disgraceful and frankly disrespectful. I suppose it will sell papers.

Now on the issue of Hussein's execution (and being someone who does not favor the death penalty, the subject is already disdainful to me), I knew The Post would go to town on this story. I gingerly doled out my quarter today at the newsstand to see what treatment my little yellow journal would give this story. Yikes. They devoted a special edition to it.

The headline was in a typeface as large as it must have been for the 1968 moon landing. It roared, "SADDAM HANGS: Butcher Executed at Dawn." That was tame compared to the six pages inside. Each page was framed by the caption: Saddam Executed accompanied by a small photograph of Saddam's head with an illustration of a noose fashioned around his neck. The next section brought the headline: "Good Riddance to Satanic Rat." And so on. It was astonishing to me that The Post didn't actually publish the photos of him swinging from the gallows, but maybe they didn't receive them off the AP feed in time for their print deadline. Perhaps they will make Sunday's edition. I wouldn't be surprised.

For all my lowbrow leanings (all of which I admit to and am proud of) I do expect more from a written news medium. I made a New Years resolution today--and this speaks volumes as I think resolutions are bullshit-- I vowed to subscribe to The Times starting in January. And what's more, to read it.

I can still read Page Six online.