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.
Obama is not gay. His problem is that he is rapidly losing testosterone.
Little Green Footballs links to another blog with a consolidation of many different reports that it may be the Hillary/Huma connection:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27763_The_Secret_Hillary&only
This blog discusses the rumor and mentions that the Hillary campaign has recently been promoting Huma in photos and in the media (Vogue spread, etc.) to “hide her in plain sight” — i.e., pre-empt a scandal by giving a reason why they go everywhere together. Interesting speculation — if true, would dovetail with Rosenbaum’s comment that you can see hints of why certain media reports may be arising as a result of the scandal...
http://bigheaddc.com/2007/08/08/michael-musto-intimates-hillary-had-affair-w-female-aide/
And below, it’s discussed that the ‘toons may have gotten the GQ story killed because of this rumor. It’s starting to look like this may be the big alleged scandal — whether or not it’s actually true is another story:
http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/2007/10/31/la-times-sitting-on-explosive-prez-candidate-story/
Several commenters on Rosenbaum’s article strongly believe that Hillary Clinton will ultimately be revealed as a lesbian, and that the recent GQ story her campaign helped kill by threatening to withhold a Bill Clinton interview may have gone into some shocking details into her sex life.Rumors of a close Hillary relationship with one of her top aides Huma Abedin, shown above, have long been swirling. Hillary has long denied being a lesbian.
I think it’s Obama, too.
Good points.
I’m astonished that nothing leaked anywhere, especially to Drudge. That could be a clue pointing to Hillary.
If it were Hillary, though, they wouldn’t have come out saying we have a story, but..........
OTOH, I don’t know if the MSM has the brass to challenge the Clintons on anything. The Clintons would have preempted or floated some rumors about the writer(s). So far, we heard nothing.
Derailment implies someone who is doing well according to the MSM and seemingly has nothing in their path. To me that says Guiliani, Romney on the R side and Clinton or Obama on the D side. I tend to think if it was an R the cat would be out of the bag already, because next October I think is too long to keep it secret.
It’s Hillary and Huma.
Now it’s clear why Osama, the Ambulance chaser and even Little Timmy Russert no longer fear the beast.
McCain has been the liberal media go to guy to smack down Conservatives. I do not see him or his campaign keeping quiet if it were Guiliani or Romney or any other Republican. Yet why is McCain not a 'top' tier candidate?
I have not paid enough attention specifically in the manner in which Clinton or Obama have been covered to discern if their coverage has demonstrated hints of something impending, something potentially derailing to their campaigns.
Recent media hints .... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914803/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914803/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1916340/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917301/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917623/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917824/posts
The reference to “ethics” and the Los Angeles Times in the same column is a joke.Yup.
Trying again....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1914803/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1916340/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917301/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917623/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917824/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1915305/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913454/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1913410/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919419/posts
Posted on 11/01/2007 5:55:50 AM PDT by LS
Clinton 46%, Rudy 41%
Clinton 49%, Fred 37%
Clinton 47%, McCain 40%
Clinton 52%, Huckabee 31%
:-)
TRUE. Anything about a Republican would be rammed out fast. My bet is Obama has several Jesse Jackson's in his closet.
I just know it can’t possibly be a GOP scandal because they considered ‘holding it’.
No way the liberal MSM does that.
Carolyn
“There already was a story posted here months ago about Thompson and some woman. So that can’t be it. It wouldn’t be ‘shocking’.”
True, but while this got zero repeat coverage after the debate, I thought FDT’s response to this question, followed by a quick back peddle, to be an oddly revealing personal remark for a presidential candidate and, frankly, IMO, was not at all funny.
Ms. Bartiromo: Senator Thompson? Senator Thompson, this was your first debate. How did it feel?
Mr. Thompson: Just like home......I didn’t say which kind of home.
“Maybe der Schlickmeister finally got one of his girlfriends pregnant and she’s threatening to write a “Tell All”. “
IF that were the case, she’d be fish food by now
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.