Some unruly folks are giving Clancy a hard time over his paper's increasingly relevant endorsement of Bobby Jindal. Apparently (if Sam Winston's response is any indication), it's the Gambit's position that there's really no reason for anyone to keep harping on something the paper did way back in the dark ages of "LAST OCTOBER". But, as I've explained previously, reserving critical reporting and commentary that could just as easily been done before the election until a time when it is far less useful to the readership is... well it isn't "Ahead of the game" whatever it is.
Of course, we're all glad to see Gambit bring more of a "Mike Tyson" than "Pee Wee Herman" approach (to borrow Clancy's inexplicably 80's themed terminology) to its reporting of late. But the mere fact that it is capable of doing this makes us even more suspicious of the embarrasing Jindal hagiography it displayed during the election.
No comments:
Post a Comment