Gut Rumbles

January 11, 2006

Says who?

I love it when some nimrod comes up with a "worst" and "best" list of things ethical and makes me think he's got some pretty screwed-up idea of ethics. Just check this one. Can you say "leftist asshole?" Good. I KNEW you could.

In the "worst" category?

1. President Bush-- for manipulating the law to allow spying on American citizens.

That one right there kinda lets you know where this guy is coming from. The SHOCK! The HORROR! The BULLSHIT!

7. Exxon -- for ignoring shareholders' resolutions calling for it to admit carbon emissions lead to global warming (and to effect change that would promote alternative energy).

Good grief. Another environmental whack-job who believes that global warming is real, that it's caused by man-made C02 emmissions and that "alternative energy" is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist. He needs a windmill stuck up his ass.

In the "best" category?

3. The New York Times -- for owning up to its journalistic breaches and launching, albeit not perfectly, a query into its internal controls and editing procedures for all of us to see and read.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! Excuse me. I just blew apple juice all over my computer. Yeah, the New York Times certainly has proved itself to be a fine example of journalistic ethics, if half-truths, news-twisting and outright lies count as ethics. I think their NSA story borders on treason. And they owned up to their "journalistic breaches" only after they were caught with their pants down and their buns in the wind. Ethics, my Cracker ass. agenda is more like it.

4. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq -- for being stalwart against ugly criticism of her war protests and exemplifying free speech in America.

Okay, now I just PUKED all over my keyboard. Cindy Sheehan is a self-aggrandizing ghoul who richly deserved her place as the #1 asshole of 2005 on my list. The woman is a disgrace to the memory of her son and a true winged dingbat.

I won't bother with his selection of George Loony Clooney as an ethical paragon. That's too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'm just surprised that the guy didn't choose Saddam Hussein as one of the "best."


I know that it is fashionable to relentlessly attack the NYT as having a strong bias in its reporting. Could someone suggest a newspaper that has no visible bias in its coverage? I've been a reader of the Times for forty years and I never detected a bias except of course in its editorials. I'd love to explore alternative publications if a suggestion were made.

Posted by: Rojak on January 11, 2006 04:21 PM

You just couldn't stand having a clean keyboard could you?

Posted by: livey on January 11, 2006 06:26 PM

Cindy Sheehan...a mother grieving the loss of her son who always had an ear-to-ear grin on her stupid face....................

until her book signing when no one showed up!

It was the only time I saw a picture of the witch without that stupid smirk.

Posted by: Maggie on January 11, 2006 07:38 PM

No bias in the NY Times, Rojak ? Bias is revealed as much by what the paper doesn't report and how it reports what it reports and where the report is located in the paper. I read the blogs from Iraq and some of the off shore on line news reports. The NY Times has never reported that we are winning the war in Iraq--only about how many deaths we have suffered. Just once I would like for them to report how many ragheaded terrorists have been sent to fuck camels in their heaven.

Posted by: GUYK on January 11, 2006 08:37 PM

Could someone suggest a newspaper that has no visible bias in its coverage?

No. The question really isn't bias alone -- it's whether that bias serves the alleged purpose of the newspaper, or some unrelated purpose of a bunch of ivory-tower elitists whose offices overlooking Times Square happen to have large windows.

There are no unbiased newspapers (or TV networks), but some are more responsible than others. The New York Times is the Lexus of irresponsible newspapers.

Posted by: McGehee on January 11, 2006 10:55 PM

I have always enjoyed the Washington Times, but only online since I moved to Florida. It has a bent to the right of center, has op-ed writers like Coulter, Williams, and so forth featured, but makes no bones about being on the right.
The bullshit factor is wayyyyyy less than the Washington Post, NYT, and similar radical leftie mouthpieces (which you usually aren't aware that's what they are, unless you read blogs, NRO, or
MCGEHEE got it right -- every rag has an agenda, just most are a tad sneaky about being open about it.

Posted by: Horrabin on January 12, 2006 11:34 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.