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.
That is what makes most sense to me as well.
No, my guess is that it is Rudy and that it is not really big news. I think that they are holding back on this, trying to build the hype for severa; reasons, one, because whatever it is will not be any great revelation; two, because holding back the information may cause doubt in the minds of primary voters; three, because Hillary wants to hold on to the information for a more opportune time, when she can use it to her fullest advantage.
I’m not ruling out this is a Republican, and the Drive-by’s are just waiting to release this for maximum damage.. If it is a republican, I think its Rommney, because this type of scandal would hurt is image as a man of ‘faith’. Rudy has been seen in drag, and Fred has a hot wife half his age..so we already know they’re “freaky”. So if its Romney it will be he’s gay, cuz Mormon’s can have more then one wife..though why anybody would want more then one is beyond me. So this might be held until after Iowa and we see how Rommney does there.
But I doubt its a republican..they’ve already 2 gay sex scandals in the past year, so its not as shocking. Besides anymore of these scandals and the GOP can apply for a tax break as a religious org. Plus the MSM would have a hard time sitting on this if it was a Republican. So I have to conclude its Obama..It can’t be Edwards, him being gay wouldn’t be a suprise.
Think about it......Oprah has been twisting arms throughout the entertainment world for months to raise money for Obama. She has had him on her show and has refused to have any other presidential candidates on. Their home base is Chicago and they have known each other for a long time. Her endorsement has been arguably Obama's most important. And she is certainly powerful enough in L.A. circles to make the paper sit on this story.
ROFLOL, I’ve said that for years! She looks like WEB.
If this were a GOP candidate, they would be plastered all over the MEDIA by now. Especially if this were one of the top runners, so no, this is a Democrat.
It’s not Romney and no, mormans can’t have more than one wife.
1- They are holding on: It has to be a DUmbo
2- They are thinking of releasing it: It has to be for punishing somebody for Hitlery’s loss in the last debate
3- Most likely, it’s Obama or Edwards
4- If it were Edwards, they would have come out with it
4- Obama is a minority and that’s scary for the MSM this is why the hand-wringing
Just trying to make sense of a convoluted MSM.
I’m guessing it is a Republican and they are trying to decide whether to release it now or wait until the person gets the nomination say in October of next year. Of course the risk they run is that person might not get the nomination then it becomes just a who cares story.
If it was about any of the top Dems there would be no soul searching the story would just be spiked period.
Let’s not forget the FBI files that some how found there way to the First Ladies office during the Clinton administration? Information that could now be valuable!
Bill Clinton (after he raped Juanita) told her he was sterile - from a case of childhood mumps).
And she looks like Hubble in all but the birth certificate.)
Hillary - since they MUST protect her.
Lesbian/homosexual live-in lover? It would titillate millions, but would it GAIN votes from anybody but her existing Rosie/West Hollywood/New York fashion voters?
No.
Hillary being a lesbian is repulsive to most voters (though the evidence woiuld IMMEDIATELY get billions of Internet hits!) and the “lover” would become famous/infamous - but HILLARY would gain no votes and no influence.
Now.... If Hillary! were attractive, the case would be different. She WOULD gain the Paris-Lindsey-Brittney younger voters would vote their gonads and not their brains.... But Hillary is a repulsive, ugly old hag. (Janet Reno in lesbian drag) and so exposing Hillary! as a lesbian is NOT going to get her votes in her core, audience = sing;e young women.
There are only two people in this world the MSM would sit on a story to protect: Ted Kennedy and hillary. Ted’s not running, so it must be hillary. Which brings up an interesting scenario: Bill Clinton spending his time fending off hillary’s bimbo eruptions. Hunting them down one by one. And don’t you know she had as many as he did.
He did say it WAS a Senator, and a Presidential candidate.
Only a few people fit those limits........
“I think it is entirely possible that the L.A. Times has discovered that Barack Obama is having an affair with Oprah Winfrey.”
You know, this makes a lot of sense. My first thought was Obama in a gay relationship (come on he DOES look a little light in the loafers) but this seems even more reasonable. Fact is, as powerful and rich as she is, Oprah can BUY anyone she wants. And if it’s Obama she wants....
I was going to make a smug remark about Lorrie Morgan being divorced again, so Fred had better look out. You know, Sammy lost in his bid for the Lieutenant Governorship of Louisiana, so Lorrie’s probably going to try to look up her old sweetheart who has actually won an election. But it was tongue in cheek. Then I saw this Obama/Oprah thing and all the other thoughts went out the window. I think this is it.
The other possibility (and it is a very probable one) is that Bill Clinton is messing around again and has a new girl friend, maybe even a live in?
**I don’t think they believe she can win and sat on this to give her a chance to run but when it comes out Al Gore steps in to save the day**
Very interesting theory. But I don’t think Gore would win either.
Fred is tanking at InTrade, so that might be the first unbiased indicator of who it is.
Thompson Tanking in Futures Markets (Intrade, IEM)
Intrade; Iowa Electronic Markets ^ | October 31, 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1919127/posts
Posted on 10/31/2007 1:17:10 PM PDT by Plutarch
*
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.