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.
this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before.
To me, that means that there has been some sort of speculation about this purported sexual issue in the past. Obama hasn't been the subject of scrutiny long enough for that to be true - most of the 'scandal' speculation about him has been related to the question of whether he was a Muslim at some point in his life. On the other hand, there have been rumors - especially on the right - about Hillary's lesbianism since the early 1990s. (Also about her alleged affair with Vince Foster, and that Web Hubbell is Chelsea's father, but I digress....)
To me, that strongly suggests this is about Hillary, and that it's a lesbian relationship.
If they’re sitting on it, you know it HAS to be a RAT.
What fascinates me about these things is not the scandal itself, but the hubris that makes a politician with big skeletons in his/her closet think that s/he can run for president and it will never come out.
I cannot understand that either. I am relatively decent person, but I have some situations that if a reporter reported it in a certain way it would not be good. (Mostly some crazy drinking) But even with everything seemingly innocent, I would never run for President even if the position was 1 trillion dollars a year. It is not worth it at all IMHO.
When all else fails, when you just can’t find some fascts, make up a long rambling tale about nothing.
It made Seinfield rich
Yes, they might. They might wait until after the primary. You see, if they eliminate the Republican candidate in question before the primary, another candidate will become the nominee and the Dems might still have a horse race for the general election. If they wait until after the primary, assuming the candidate in question is nominated, they can print the story then and the general election becomes a slam-dunk for the Dems.
The hints given are that it’s a leading candidate, it’s not Edwards, we could already see the pulling back of the candidate and sense of impending doom in the press coverage of him/her, and it’s only the specifics of this rumor that are new to the candidate.
“Leading” but not Edwards narrows it down to Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Romney and Thompson. Seeing signs of impending doom in campaigning and coverage I think rules out Clinton, Giuliani and Romney.
That leaves Obama and Thompson, both of whom have shown some sort of pulling back of asssertiveness, poll-standings, and media predictions. Of those two Thompson is the one I’m aware of as having old rumors floated (and recently). He’s also the one who has been in the free and easy Hollywood mix while his wife’s been home pregnant and/or with infants. (Hollywood is also where the LATimes would be most likely to get wind of it.)
Fred’s actually been my candidate, I hope it’s not him. The only other possibility I see is McCain, whom I eliminated from the ‘leading’ category up top. Still I am worried for Fred.
I disagree.
I think it may be a Republican and they are sitting on it until he either becomes the RNC nominee or gets a solid #1 position in the polls. That way, the LAT hopes it will be too late for the Republicans to regroup.
You know, even if if was an Edwards or Obama scandal, it could be damaging to Hillary in a roundabout way. Hillary needs Edwards and Obama in the race to split the anti-Hillary vote. If either Edwards or Obama dropped out, the other could consolidate support and possibly defeat Hillary in later primaries.
The problem if something's really juicy (which this allegedly is) is that a truly compromised Republican candidate could withdraw and someone stronger take the reins. As widely known as this scandal apparently is, someone who doesn't believe in 'last minute gotcha' reporting will leak it to Drudge. The circle is too big for a long term tight hold without massive pressure. To my mind, that leans to be a Democrat whom they wish to protect. Only if it were something that would never see the light of day, could people's competitive juices be calmed enough not to jump the gun.
It has to be Clinton. She is the only candidate that the MSM will go to the mat for.
Could be big. Generally speaking, the African-American community is against homosexuality.
This is probably going to be the most interesting election we have ever seen.
The only coverage that has seemed strange to me is the coverage of Fred Thompson, so he would be my guess. Being of the Hollywood crowd (at least somewhat) might make the LA Times hesitate to “go there.”
I'm thinking that if this rumor were true, Drudge would have reported on it by now.
“Journalists don’t encounter ethical or moral dilemmas.”
Except when it involves a Democrat and the possibility of a short walk in the park with a revolver.
No scandal there. Just auditioning replacements for whenever Liz takes the dirt nap.
>>>Being of the Hollywood crowd (at least somewhat) might make the LA Times hesitate to “go there.”
I was thinking that too.
If it’s the beltway press crowd who is in the know, then it may be assumable that the politician is DC based - and that leaves Rudy and Mitt out. Fred, as well.
McCain would fit the bill, as would Hillary or Obama.
heaven knows that to the DC press crowd, anyone outside the beltway is insignificant in their minds.
i was hoping someone would have figured this out by this AM. i wanna know!
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.