« Holy smackers | Main | Miniglean »

08/28/2006

Comments

Actually Hugh if you were a Republican, you'ld use your next big-media appearance on Catatonic State in Nevada to mention the "controversy surrounding Congressman Porter's private life, that he still has not come clean on" and wonder "if it will be an issue for him in the race" that his campaign handlers "apparently won't let him speak about it publicly."

Boy, the Sun's Brian Greenspun sure can write a fun column, that is when he's not being obtuse with his predictable, tedious, and so-what musings about Israel.

As for Sherm, he again got tangled in his own absent-minded hubris, and once again, embarrasses himself, with every column he writes.

Sherm, why no mention in your mea copla column item at the bottom, re. Ralston's arrest, about Stephens' contributions to the Club for Growth and Angle campaign? You had another chance to do the "ethical" thing you're proud of the R-J doing, and well within the two-week drop-dead deadline you pledged not to violate.

Both papers are ethically challenged -- the Sun has made itself famous for pro-Greenspun interest/friend, anti-Greenspun interest/friend stories for years -- but this time Sherm went out on a very, very long limb and embarrassed his newspaper big time, not only on Club for Growth, but the tiny Ralston flap (the subject of his inaccurate, self-righteous rant coming from something he read about a publisher in Santa Barbara).

As has been known for years and years now, the Stephens Media people tolerate Frederick's inane behavior and keep him in there as publisher because he's dumber than they are. Easier to control, don't you know.

Damn, this is what we get here in newspaper-poor Vegas, a couple of spolied rich publishers engaging in petty tirades. Does this kind of thing happen with any other newspapers in the country?

Why don't they just blog or e-mail each other and save valuable print space for real things to write about? Probably because they truly don't have anything to write about beyond the childish.

But, I have to admit, it's fun reading -- for the unintended comedy.

I finally agree with the Shermanator. I think it would be redundant to disclose Stephans/Angle/Review Journal/Club For Growth/TASC or (SARJ CuFoGRoTASC). Anyone who reads the R-J or its loony editorials knows or should have known that is one whacky, biased bunch. To disclose they choose to give millions of U.S. dollars to fund another whacky political group while enjoying a sales tax exemption on not only newspapers but all the components of newspaper (paper, ink, machines, loony editorials, etc.) while still assailing any attempt to properly fund government’s necessary missions, would be verbose and redundant (like this sentence!) It would be like having a warning about nudity on the cover of Playboy. I really believe it would not matter if the local T.V. news didn’t just read the R.J. on the air. I am going to continue to get my news where I know there may be some truth: gossip. And if I want some insightful and thoughtful commentary about the issues of the day that may inspire positive change, I will continue to go where I can count on something real: MySpace.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Glean the Gleaner



  • Web lasvegasgleaner.com