The ethics-free web zone known as Gawker is indignant that it now appears that the young men roughed up by now-defeated North Carolina Democrat Rep. Bob Etheridge were G.O.P operatives stalking him in the hopes of catching him in a gaffe. Etheridge lost, in part because the video of him grabbing one of the young men in a bear hug was turned into an effective campaign ad by his adversary. He deserved to lose, as much as any candidate running in any race in the country.
Gawker apparently believes that under some circumstances it is no big deal for members of the U.S. Congress to commit assault and battery on the citizens they are supposed to serve, a view that Etheridge shares, but that Ethics Alarms does not.
Neither does Ken, over at Pope Hat, who makes a definitive argument that Etheridge has no excuse whatsoever. I can’t improve on it. You can read it here.
I just read Ken’s article over at Pope’s Hat.
Is it ethical for a responsible reader to abandon Ethics Site #1 in favor of Ethics Site#2, even though #1 directed attention to #2, solely on the grounds that #2 is funnier and more entertaining?
1) Yes.
2) Pope Hat isn’t an ethics site. It’s a political/social/ pop culture site that often includes stories about ethics
3) Bite me.