Replies

You know what all this reminds me of?

Monica.

Yeah, we and Drudge had that story for...maybe 7 months before the MSM had it.

It wasn’t like they didn’t know, no way. They ALL knew.

Our membership here at FR was reallllly taking off.

We had tons of Monica experts here, coaching each other, pointing out new stuff, drawing new associations. There’d be many THOUSANDS of posts about her, reams and reams of the stuff.

In the MSM? Not even crickets —NOTHING.

We were two parallel media universes, right next to each other, yet hermetically sealed.

FINALLY the National Enquirer said something. We’d so long been used to there being NO paper printed matter that we were amazed.

And then a couple months after the National Enquirer, FINALLY the floodgates broke and it was everywhere.

But for a time?

Yeah, you could go to your many co-workers and tell them about what was going on and EVERYONE would look at you like you were E.T., or that maybe you had just beamed down with two heads, or something.

And now it’s sort of feeling the same.

A couple of nights ago someone posted a report from a foreign source (it may have actually been Assange) suggesting that a sealed indictment has already been handed up for a current member of Congress.

I have no idea if it's true, but I do know that the Freeper who posted it is not prone to sensationalism.

IIRC, the genesis of that story was Drudge breaking the fact that Newsweek (remember them) was sitting on the story. I did not look at Drudge before that (I seem to recall it as mid January 1998 - somehow the 16th stands out in my memory.)

I think the lag between Drudge reporting that and the MSM touching it was more on the order of 48 hours. I recall Jim Lehrer of PBS having an interview with Bill Clinton in the White House on what seemed to be the Monday or Tuesday after the Saturday Drudge story (breaking of the Newsweek spiking of the Lewinsky story.) At the outset of that interview Lehrer apologizes for having to pander to stuff derived from the Internet thing, then asks Clinton if there was any truth to it. Bill Clinton, ever adept, said "There is no improper relationship."

Lehrer should have understood from the context of his question that Clinton was deliberately answering a question he wasn't asked - about the present. The Newsweek story that was being held was about the past. Any journalist with any integrity would have immediately said, "Mr. President, was there ever an improper relationship in the past as alleged in this story?" But Lehrer just remained on bended knee and went on to whatever else he could discuss.

That's the way I remember it. The MSM wasn't more than several days behind.

Yes I've had that exact same feeling, like there's a complete and total blackout on the story because they all know that a) it's true; and b) the full truth is even worse than that. For example, not many people know even today that Clinton is credibly alleged to have raped Lewinsky, and that this was not a mere tryst by with an infatuated fan.

You know what all this reminds me of? Monica. Yeah, we and Drudge had that story for...maybe 7 months before the MSM had it.

Even when the MSM finally reported the Monica story, they had to lie about it.

I remember when the LA Times breathlessly reported –based on their anonymous "sources"– that the stain on Monica's blue dress had tested negative for Clinton's DNA.

A few weeks later the truth came out. But afaik the LA Times never apologized or even retracted.