| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| MSM sitting on "sex scandal" story involving presidential contender |
| 2007-10-31 |
| Ron Rosenbaum So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. “Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. “Sitting on it” because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. . . . Now, as I say it’s a rumor; I haven’t seen the supporting evidence. But the person who told me said it offhandedly as if everyone in his world knew about it. And if you look close enough you can find hints of something impending, something potentially derailing to this candidate in the reporting of the campaign. Which could mean that something unspoken, unwritten about is influencing what is written, what we read. Why are well wired media elite keeping silent about it? Because they think we can’t handle the truth? Very likely. Because they think it’s substantively irrelevant? Or they think it's all too relevant, but don't like the likely effect of the story. What standards of judgment are they using? They have standards? Who'da thunki it? Are they afraid that to print it will bring on opprobrium. Are they afraid not printing it will bring on opprobrium? Or both? I'll take 'both,' Regis. But alas if it leaks out from less “responsible” sources. *cough* Drudge! *cough* then all their contextual protectiveness of us will have been wasted. And what about timing? They, meaning the DC elite media, must know if it comes out before the parties select their primary winners and eventual nominees, voters would have the ability to decide how important they felt it to the narrative of the candidate in question. Aren’t they, in delaying and not letting the pieces fall where they potentially may, not refusing to act but acting in a different way—taking it upon themselves to decide the Presidential election by their silence? If they waited until the nominees were chosen wouldn’t that be unfair because, arguably, it could sink the candidacy of one of the potential nominees after the nomination was finalized? And doesn’t the fact that they “all” know something’s there but can’t say affect their campaign coverage in a subterranean, subconscious way that their readers are excluded from? Assuredly. There seem to be two conflicting imperatives here. The new media, Web 2.0 anti-elitist preference for transparency and immediacy and the traditional elitist preference for reflection, judgment and standards—their reflection, their small-group judgment and standards. Their civic duty to “protect” us from knowing too much. I feel a little uneasy reporting this. No matter how well “nailed” they think they have it, it may turn out to be untrue. What I’m really reporting on is the unreported persistence of a schism between the DC media elites and their inside knowlede and the public that is kept in the dark. For their own good? Maybe they’d dismiss it as irrelevant, but shouldn’t they know? While the Rosenbaum article does not mention party affiliation, another source says its a Dem. I think the fact that the underlying story hasn't run yet tends to confirm this. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #20 Sen Obama had a fling Big deal. Sen Kucinich probably had a fling or two; same with Sen Biden. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-10-31 21:57 |
| #19 NSFW AND NSF pre-dinner....yeesh :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-10-31 21:43 |
| #18 They certainly can't use the "it's not a trend" excuse... |
| Posted by: Hyper 2007-10-31 21:07 |
| #17 The LA Times was sitting on a (sexual scandal))story, Matt Drudge call your office. |
| Posted by: GK 2007-10-31 20:57 |
| #16 That was close; I thought you were goins to say she wasn't a female. That would explain so much. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-31 18:13 |
#15 The sex scandal is that Hillary's not a blonde.
| |
| Posted by: badanov 2007-10-31 18:09 |
| #14 Was it yesterday or the day before (?) I was reading Instapundit and Mickey Kaus was quoted as saying that there was an impending "Scandal Star" about to burst on the scene to wreck havoc on our complacent political world. I didn't know at the time what he was referring to. I think I do now. My only wish it that it would be Hillary at the center of the scandal. Or even Bill. But it won;t be. Shucks. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-10-31 16:56 |
| #13 Could just be a UFO sighting. However, as much as everyone jumped on Hilliary last night you would have thought she was getting boned by everyone on the stage. If this involved a Republican, the MSM would be quick to report the story; they might even make it up. The MSM is so in-bed with the leftish donks, they are not going to report such a story. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-10-31 16:44 |
| #12 The one organization that can kill a story is the MSM. They would have spiked Lewinski successfully if it hadn't been for Drudge. That has changed all the rules, but the MSM doesn't know it yet. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-31 16:42 |
| #11 MSM is even worse at secret-keeping than politicians, or the CIA; I'd be very surprised if this story could stay buried - even if there isn't really any story, somebody'll make one up. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-10-31 16:39 |
| #10 I too am skeptical about anyones ability to keep a story like this. However, if it's about Hillary! and they can't keep it hush-hush, it needs to come out soon so they can do some damage control and have some time to move past the scandal. If that is the case, expect to see it come out over Thanksgiving because that's where news goes to die. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-10-31 16:32 |
| #9 Well, Slick Willie f*cked his way through the presidency and got away with it, so what's the big deal. The President is looked up to so he must be right. /bad example setting |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-10-31 16:22 |
| #8 One of my college buddies (DEM) in DC said he saw Hillary & Vince (Foster) snuggling up at a party once. Jeez, ya think that could be it? Nope, that couldn't be the story. It might bring up WAY more than what the media wants out there.... |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2007-10-31 15:33 |
#7 Update: Jim Geraghty @ National Review:Put me down as a skeptic that the Los Angeles Times would really be able to "sit on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate." (Allegedly it's separate from the Enquirer's claims about John Edwards.) |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-10-31 15:25 |
| #6 There are two scenarios here: Do the Slimes want to maximise or minimise the damage? If this is a leading 'pub, say Rudy, it's in their best interest to wait until AFTER he's nominated and then spring it to derail the actual campaign. Otherwise you give the rat bastard Rethuglicans the chance to nominate someone else and continue on. If, on the other hand, it's their favorite 'rat, say Hill(spit)ary. They will pick the time that will do the absolute least damage, and bury it entirely if possible. If it's Obama or Edwards they'll time it to do help Hillary the most for the primaries. Simple, no? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-10-31 14:54 |
| #5 Obama for $400, Alex. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2007-10-31 14:39 |
| #4 Obama! |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2007-10-31 14:38 |
| #3 Al Gore and Michael Moore? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2007-10-31 14:34 |
| #2 Dennis Kucinich and a space alien? No, Hillary and Janet Reno! |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-10-31 14:33 |
| #1 So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that “everyone knows” The LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate. Dennis Kucinich and a space alien? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-10-31 14:25 |