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 probably in the end agree that it will be a Dem (or they would have released it all ready), but today is a somewhat slow campaign news day so it is fun to speculate.
Here is some more speculation from a blog called “Ace Of Spades HQ” that has some fun predictions in the comments area.
http://minx.cc/?post=245068
Many are saying that John McCain has a history (which he apparently admitted in a book he wrote) I had not heard of, so that may add something to Larry Flynt’s “prominent Senator” story.
I was gonna speculate on Ron Paul, but he is weird enough without bringing a sexual scandal into the mix.
Hmmmm, well he is not exactly benefiting much from a media that has loved him sticking his fingers in the eye of conservatives. I have been amused in just how LITTLE coverage he seems to draw. There was a time when he got air time morning, noon and night, course he did give to the media control over campaign finance.
Aw shut up Ron. Either name the “crime” or just shut up.
That is uncanny.
The LA Times is first and foremost in the pockets of the Klinton's and the democrat party. Remember it was THIS SCUMBAG paper that "sat on story" regarding Arnold Schwarznegger and his groping and other sex activities almost 30 years ago. They decided to release the story just weeks before the CA election.
This is NOT about Hillary, but either Obama or a GOP frontrunner. You can take that one to the bank. This story will be release when the candidate needs to be taken out.
It’s not Obama. An affair might actually help the guy. Rumors about it helped JFK when he was running. Back then, part of the calculus was ‘How much do we have to worry about a Catholic answering to the Pope if the guy’s two timing his wife?’
I believe your number 3 is it. Obama on the down low. They will only use it if he starts to attack the beast.
that would explain his behavior during the Dim debate. He was just weak.
Well, the MSM’s playing a fool’s game. If the info is outr there, it’ll be available online sooner or later. And if the MSM is caught spiking stories again, they’ll find out that their latest ratings and circulation problems are a tempest in a teacup in comparison to what they’ll see after that.
That narrows it down to the top three pubbies -
there is only one "front runner" on the dem's side and that's Hillary.
Yep.
If its real, I’m surprised Drudge or TMZ didn’t break it already.
As per the story it is a front runner. That means Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and maybe McCain.
Not Edwards, discounted by the author of the story.
McCain has some past, but has been very open about it. At 70+ years old, a sex scandal would be laughable (and laudable).
Romney is very squeaky clean, so a scandal would hurt him badly, but there is no incentive to hold back by the press.
That leaves Hillary, Obama, Giuliani, and Thompson.
I don’t know if Thompson is enough of a front runner to make this a “story.” Besides, he is married to a babe.
The gay rumors have swirled around Rudy for years. Right now it would kill him with the base to the extent that he wouldn’t get the nomination. If the MSM let it go now, a more formidable candidate might arise from the ashes.
Obama doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in he!! of becoming President. A scandal won’t make any difference and would help Hillary seal the nomination.
The gay rumors have swirled around Hillary, too. She recently denied them in the Advocate, which could be a reason to hold the story for the MSM. While she would still likely get the nomination, it would kill her chance in the general election. The dilemma for the MSM is that, while they love her, they are journalists and the one that breaks this story is gonna be famous. My money is on Hillary, with a secondary bet on Rudy.
NOW you’ve done it... ;)
Regards,
>>>The gay rumors have swirled around Rudy for years. Right now it would kill him with the base to the extent that he wouldn’t get the nomination.
Rudy was outed months ago though.
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2007/10/31/rumors-scandals-and-presidential-candidates.aspx
>>>The gay rumors have swirled around Rudy for years. Right now it would kill him with the base to the extent that he wouldn’t get the nomination.
Rudy was outed months ago though.
http://blog.barofintegrity.us/2007/10/31/rumors-scandals-and-presidential-candidates.aspx
Gee...A rumor about a rumor. Poor Rosenbaum. What a dilemma! Who does Rosenbaum write for?
I would bet a paycheck that, assuming this is real, the person in question is a democratic candidate.
Well said, Red!
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.