Sunday, May 1, 2011

Even MORE Columbian hypocrisy? Speculation for Jacks=bad; speculation for Rushworth=STORY?

As another in the series of endless weeks goes by without an explanation of the misconduct behind Jim Jacks' abrupt but forced departure from the state House of Representatives, we are presented with another in the endless series of examples which prove the following:

1.  The rag has no problem printing a story without proof OR a paper trail.
2.  The rag has no problem at all printing unverified information (they say as much) whenever they feel like it.
3.  They are protecting Jim Jacks and by extension, the democrats who provided them with a huge tax CUT while the rest of us have to suffer under a huge tax INCREASE.
4.  The rag refuses to engage in or allow or print the same types of things about Jacks.
5.  Brancaccio is a rank hypocrite as a result.

The rag printed a story today, if you can call it that (although tabloid journalism is typically an improvement over the usual Brancaccio product) with nothing there that equates to anything rising to the level of "news."

Briefly, it's about a guy who married someone half his age who failed to look beyond the body into history and to determine her background.  Turns out she has "issues," but that's neither here nor there.

The money quote?
Many of the details Pierpont gave can’t be verified, but he did fax the couple’s marriage certificate, along with pictures of the two of them together. He also knew the names of several of her family members.
"Can't be verified?"  Are you KIDDING me?

How come the details can be printed here without verification, but can't be printed with or about Jacks, even though so many know what happened?

What's the difference?

But more importantly...

... why the obvious hypocritical double standard?

No comments:

Post a Comment