Word: mirroring
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1950-1959
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...when the job was done, the British realized that the essence of American efficiency was something else entirely. Said London's Daily Mail: "The Americans did things at Fawley which we must introduce into British industry." The British Institute of Management's report, said the Daily Mirror, is "a bedtime book for British bosses . . . It is worth a guinea a word...
...Apologize, Billy!" While Evangelist Graham was still on the high seas, the British press warmed up the oven to give him a good roasting. The whole crusade seemed to editors to be U.S. anti-Socialist propaganda or a moneymaking racket, or both. Sneered the Daily Mirror: "America occasionally tells her friends what to do. Tomorrow an American arrives in Britain to tell us what to think and what to believe. God's Own Country has always run a brisk export line in evangelists. They come in all shapes and sizes . . . We've had kids like seven-year...
...with scriptural attention on Broadway, even though the majority feel "our responsibility is not to the theater but to the public." Says Chapman: "I write for an audience of one-a tough one: me." Atkinson, Kerr and the Post's Richard Watts have a similar "personal" yardstick. The Mirror's Robert Coleman ("My readers consider me a ... shopper for them"), the Journal-American's John McClain ("My duty is to tell my readers whether or not a show is worth the price of a ticket") and the World-Telegram and Sun's William Hawkins ("My role...
...that way in print. He has to come from the opening and say it's brilliant, it's wonderful." As a result, many a producer and director charges the critics with too often being "shallow" or "dull." "When a critic praises a play," says the Mirror's Coleman, "he is a wonderful critic . . . When he pans one, he is destructive, monstrous, unintelligent." Director Margaret Webster sums it up simply: "Bad notices will cook you. It's impossible to grin and bear...
There is not much point in building a big brother for the Hale telescope. Even if its mirror were made twice as wide (a monstrously difficult and costly undertaking), it would see only twice as far into space. It might not see even as far as that; one of the Hale's great difficulties is the faint "shine" of the night sky, which fogs its photographic plates before they can catch the images of extremely distant objects. A bigger Hale-type telescope would suffer even more from sky shine...