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 can’t see the MSM sitting on a Republican sex scandal, thats for sure.
They’ll keep their powder dry for as long as it suits them.
I think given the ratings wars, thats not as likely as it was just a few years ago.
Apparently Thompsons chief fundraiser quit the campaign for “business reasons”.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/30/thompsons_money_chief_moves_on.html
But if this really is “common knowledge” then I question if McClintock would have endorsed him yesterday.
I have NO clue who is the object and subject of this rumor. There is one on the GOP that should be the top of the tier and who should be the LAST person on this planet that should be running low on campaign dollars.
This guy gave a hint in how he describes the media coverage of a campaign... uses the word derailment... signal to observe in how the media covers a particular campaign thereby giving a clue.
- I think your reasoning is sound. Remember, a few weeks ago Thompson made some off the cuff comments in which he tried to joke about the wide swath he cut earlier when he was on the dating scene. He implied that he was just a lovable rogue who enjoyed catting around - a lot. At the time, I thought why is he opening up this subject, unless he’s trying to defuse a potential issue out there before someone else uses it against him.
Perhaps the LA Times has been able to put some specific names on his date list - and not all of them predate his marriage.
Personally, I do not think it is Thompson, but I really have NO clue.... The media has treated Thompson like they treat Republicans.
I was just going by the article though. The article said a ‘leading Presidential candidate’ and I thought it was referencing the MSM’s standards of leading since the story was how the MSM is sitting on it.
I was basing my thoughts on that.
You may well be correct. This author appeared to plant hints and clues deep in the story which I found curious. He did not out the rumor but gave directions to those who follow media coverage of presidential campaigns to observe conflicted coverage, or less coverage.
Hey, it could be a trick for Halloween too :)
The writer does state that the rumor isn't necessarily new, just that he had never heard it in this "form" before.
He also said that they were unsure if it would make a difference to the voters or not.
On one hand, this could be Rudy, because nothing he would do as far as extra marital affairs would be very shocking. And we also, as far as we know, haven't heard any rumors about behind the scenes campaign problems.
I also don't see it being one of the Christian Conservatives. Because that would effect those voters. So that pretty much takes out Huckabee, and Romney. Neither of those two could get away with being unfaithful since they have both stressed family values.
The only reason I am leaving Fred in is because a lot of the hard core Christian conservatives (in the medias eyes anyway) have decided he isn't quite right for them.
I also have been unable to figure out if this is an ongoing scandal, or a past scandal. That too would make a difference on attitudes.
Yes indeed, the media is full of tricksters, 'treating' US to what they decide is the news. Even this guy is playing trick and treat.
I think Chelsea looks just like Bill’s mother, not Webb Hubbell.
That’s a really, really, creepy picture to paint.
Is there a picture of Bill Clinton’s mother anywhere?
From the article:
“By the way, t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else. “
What I do NOT like about this whole picture is that the candidate and the media are playing a game of dare, might say even blackmail. Thompson has been around long enough to know what kind of game he is playing and being Republican will not earn him ‘grace’ with the likes of the Clintons and their liberal media.
Bump to save my spot for later.
He certainly has made moves that would suggest that.
"Larry Flynt, editor and publisher of Hustler magazine, just told FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto that he’s “hoping to expose a bombshell” that will stand “Washington and the country on its head.”
Within the next week or two, he says his magazine will expose a sex scandal of huge proportions involving a prominent United States Senator. Flynt refused to comment on the Senator’s political affiliation, but alluded that he or she is a Republican."
sw
The more I think about it the more I think it probably is a pubbie for just the reasons I stated. If this particular candidate becomes the pubbie nominee they will release the info to sink him if he doesn’t become the nominee they can say it doesn’t matter. They will protect Hillary no matter what.
Agreed
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.