Posted on 10/30/2007 6:09:13 PM PDT by jimboster
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. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me )not an LAT person) knows I write and didn’t say “don’t write about this”.
If it’s true, I don’t envy the LAT. I respect their hesitation, their dilemma, deciding to run or not to run it raises a lot of difficult journalism ethics questions and they’re likely to be attacked, when it comes out—the story or their suppression of the story—whatever they do.
I’ve been sensing hints that something’s going on, something’s going unspoken in certain insider coverage of the campaign (and by the way this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before. By the way, t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.
And when my source said “everyone in Washington”, knows about it he means everyone in the elite Mainstream media, not just the LA Times, but everyone regularly writing about the Presdidential campaign knows about it and doesn’t know what to do with it. And I must admit it really is was juicy if true. But I don’t know if it’s true and I can’t decide if I think it’s relevant. But the fact that “everyone” in the elite media knew about it and was keeping silent about it, is, itself, news. But you can’t report the “news” without reporting the thing itself. Troubling!
It raises all sorts of ethical questions. What about private sexual behavior is relevant? What about a marriage belongs in the coverage of a presidential campaign? Does it go to the judgment of the candidate in question? Didn’t we all have a national nervous breakdown over these questions nearly a decade ago?
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? Because they think it’s substantively irrelevant? What standards of judgment are they using? Are they afraid that to print it will bring on opprobrium. Are they afraid not printing it will bring on opprobrium? Or both?
But alas if it leaks out from less “responsible” sources. 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?
I just don’t know the answer. I’m glad in a situation like this, if there is in fact truth to it, that I wouldn’t have to be the “decider”. I wouldn’t want to be in a position of having to make that choice. But it’s a choice that may well decide a crucial turning point in history. Or maybe not: Maybe voters will decide they don’t think it’s important, however juicy. But should it be their choice or the choice of the media elites? It illustrates the fact that there are still two cultures at war within our political culture, insiders and outsiders. As a relative outsider I have to admit I was shocked not just by this but by several other things “everyone” down there knows.
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?
I don’t know.
I read somewhere else that Flynt is about to push Mitch McConnell “out of the closet”. Actually, I believe it was a thread on FR yesterday.
I think this Flynt thing is separate from the “juicy” rumor the elites are sitting on, whatever that may be.
Rosenbaum's being conflicted over *relevance*...
But I don’t know if it’s true and I can’t decide if I think it’s relevant.
...hints strongly at it being something homosexual. It also suggests the object of the rumor is a Democrat. Media people know this would hurt the Democrat, so they are loathe to report it. They justify not reporting it with the PC derived rationalization that it's not newsworthy -- i.e. that it's not relevant. The problem is that the public would certainly find it relevant and newsworthy, so that's not a very good excuse. Hence their dilemma.
A female mistress “scandal” would be the best thing that could happen to Pink Sapphire. Too bad for him that no one would believe it...
You know the REAL SHOCKING SCANDAL here?
I don’t know, don’t care, have no curiosity. I am scandaled out. It is pitiful when scandals no longer hold any interest.
I am more interested in the buildup to Iran.
You know the REAL SHOCKING SCANDAL here?
I don’t know, don’t care, have no curiosity. I am scandaled out. It is pitiful when scandals no longer hold any interest.
I am more interested in the buildup to Iran.
I don’t know how I doubled that,,sorry.
The same anonymous source cited by the LA Times and NY Times and Washington Post told me that Rudi has an underage gay lover, that McCain was sodomized in the Hanoi Hilton, that Obama was a catamite to an Islamic Mullah’s pedarasty, that Hillary used rophies to date-rape young interns, and that Mitt had a standy fluffer while Governor.
...but unlike the LA Times and NY Times and Washington Post, I don’t trust “anonymous sources.” So I don’t buy any of it.
I didn't finish the movie "Man of the Year" because I hated it so much, but I DID enjoy the Robin Williams character dumping EVERYTHING bad he ever did publicly, just to get it out of the way. If I ever ran for office I'd have a private eye check out everything out there on me. Every republican HAS to know that the media will dig up even the most obscure details on their private life. Larry Flynt brags about "getting" republicans and offers big time $ for information. If it's Romney or Fred they can't play stupid. They need to get it out NOW. BTW, I agree that the odds are it's a dem. It's way too early to spring a bombshell on a republican candidate.
Gag me with a spoon. YUCK! How could you? I will probably have disgusting nightmares about those two. EEEEWWWWWWW. Shudder.
“.....Hillary’s SSAD...”.
I must be hopelessly out of date. WTH is SSAD?
Except that Rosenabaum says this story is one I never heard in this specific form before.
What is there that hasn't been alleged about either Clinton? Camels? Penguins? Each Other?
Huma’s a beauty. She travels everywhere with Hillary. She’s Saudi. The story about her said she just bought an apt but the apt is NOT one someone with Huma’s reported wealth would ver live in. I think it may well be Huma.
SSAD = Same-Sex Attraction Disorder.
HAHAAHA!!!
Chelsea sure does resemble Webster much more than she does Billy Blythe, doesn’t she???
Reagan80
Google her and Hillary. There’s a lot.
Ohh Sandy!
Is that a wad of paper in your pants or are you just happy to see me?
OK, Matt! Are you reading this? Get the flashing red light ready!
Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Candle Stick and Monica Lewinsky
There. Fixed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.