Anti-gun male Bernd Debusmann has been wronged, and it's all my fault.
It seems in Friday's post, I accused him of writing "a fluff piece comparing tyrant Hugo Chavez to a rock star."
Bernd shot me an email with this link under the subject heading "Fluff Pieces for Chavez?" Unable to hold his water and wait for a response, he also posted it in a comment.
Read, Bernd, read.
I didn't say "fluff pieceS," I said "fluff piece." It was a perfectly accurate statement for an article where your words called this thug "the political equivalent of a rock star." If you wrote another article critical of him, bully for you. But I still note you make an effort to include words of praise even there for this collectivist strongman--a courtesy you have not extended to American gun owners in your hit piece on us (you truly couldn't find any positive examples of gun use to balance out any of that "massacre" meme?). Apparently even your enablers at Reuters found the piece to be enough of an embarrassment to want to put some distance between their reputations and yours.
Your outrage is amusing, Bernd. You present "facts," conveniently neglecting to mention who paid for them. You present sources, conveniently neglecting to mention they are bought and paid for by the same anti-gun benefactors. And you present this all as reliable information.
But the one thing you glom on is I didn't research everything you've ever written about Hugo Chavez? Sensitive, aren't we? Well, sorry, Bernd. When I catch a "man" lying to me, I have a tendency to lose interest in anything else he might have to say.
Tell you what, though, I'm a pretty fair guy--just ask anybody. You'll find plenty of examples on this site of people disagreeing with me, and that's fine. If you still have a beef, feel free to post a comment. I'm sure more than a couple regulars around here wouldn't mind hearing your side of things, and maybe even having a word with you themselves.
UPDATE: Armed and Safe gives us a summary of gun blogs deeply concerned with ensuring Bernd's reputation isn't unfairly sullied, making sure it only reflects what he's done to it himself.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I guess when one gets nominated for Pulitzer prizes, journalistic integrity no longer applies.
Or so it seems.
Stan,
While I understand both the word "journalistic" and the word "integrity" I am having trouble parsing the phrase "journalistic integrity". At least as it applies to the MSM.
Journalists in niche markets still exhibit such an anachronistic concept.
Maybe they're just into fluff pisces! You know... really fat fish. Maybe THAT's where the confusion lies.
Hey, Bernd, why don't you just shut up?
He doensn't dare, Nimrod. The only way he knows he is alive is by the irrelevant noise he makes.
Lemmee see -
After severe fiskings in cyberspace, this is the best ole Bernd can come up with.
Kinda shows how he arrives at the "facts" he posts in his articles.
Takes one minor point and runs with it, all the while ignoring the elephant in the living room.
Looks like the typical bed-wetter getting his pantyhose in a snit over incidental issues. Here's a guy who is quite conservative with the truth, yet he goes bonkers over something tangential to the issue.
Whadda maroon.
Post a Comment