When will the Mainstream Media pull their head out of its ...

[FishForLunch]

Notice that Kerry's Bimbo Eruption has been reported in the India Times in New Delhi, the London Sun and the London Independent, and now in Australia but our Main strream media has been strangely silent.

I think the US media cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

[madape]

Local news is all over it, according to Drudge:

The television networks were quiet, although ABC News radio (2/12) mentioned the story yesterday afternoon. Meanwhile, local TV across the US reported the allegation extensively. For example, KTBS-TV Shreveport, LA (2/12, 10:00 p.m.) reported, "A bomb-shell was dropped on Senator Kerry today."

KABC-TV Los Angeles, CA (2/12, 6:00 p.m.) reported, "There's a report on the Internet from Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge that John Kerry, the front runner, has had a problem with an intern in the past, perhaps an affair."

KDAF-TV Dallas, TX (2/12, 9:28 p.m.) referred to the story as a "bombshell rumor."

WBAL-TV Baltimore, MD (2/12, 11:11 p.m.) reported, "The Kerry camp is preparing a response."

WBTV-TV Charlotte, NC (2/12, 6:00 p.m.) reported, "Scandalous rumblings tonight inside John Kerry's campaign."

WSYX-TV Columbus, OH (2/12, 5:05 p.m.) reported, "Matt Drudge broke this bombshell on his website."

WTTE-TV Columbus, OH (2/12, 10:11 p.m.) reported, "The Democratic frontrunner -- some say he had an affair with an intern."

KRQE-TV Albuquerque, NM (2/12, 10:00 p.m.) reported, "Is John Kerry about to be caught up in a scandal?"

[jacktruth]

I think there is nothing solid on it.

But I agree with your point. I'd bet my last dollar that if it was a rumor about Bush, it would be everywhere. They would still probably report it as a rumor, but they would definately report it.

[madape]

Mr. Rather, can you say AWOL? I knew you could.

[Drbio]

Typical liberal media bias.

[Mavdog]

Typical liberal media bias.

yeah, a "bias" against being a yellow journalist by printing such an unsubstantiated rumor who'se authorship should be questioned strongly about what if any facts and proof they have to support their politically motivated personal attack on Kerry, while at the same time in a hypocritical fashion denounce their opponents for doing similar fashion about Bush's military record?

And then no one is really talking about the real issues, esp those that might be negative...and wow! are there a few of those hanging around. Job creation anemic, trade deficit at record levels, Iraqi dilema, etc.

This article was front page in today's DMN:

When whisper campaigns get too loud to ignore
Fueled by Internet and talk radio, Kerry rumor grew into a news story


10:15 PM CST on Friday, February 13, 2004

By COLLEEN McCAIN NELSON / The Dallas Morning News


Early Friday morning, radio personality Don Imus went public with the question that newsrooms across the country were wrestling with.

As an Internet-fueled rumor about John Kerry gained steam, Mr. Imus wondered aloud: "Do you think I should ask him?"

"We've chosen not to report it," CNN's Lou Dobbs told the New York radio host on the air. "I'm not interested in the story."

Still, Mr. Imus was torn.

"Everybody's talking about this," he said. "At some point, he's going to be asked about it."

"He won't be asked about it by me," Mr. Dobbs said.

An hour later, Mr. Imus broached the subject, asking the Democratic front-runner a vague question about an alleged affair. Mr. Kerry denied it, quickly ending the discussion.

Mr. Dobbs, a veteran newsman, said he'd had enough of "personal politics." But Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn, later told Mr. Imus, "You did what any reporter would have done."

The debate revealed the dilemma that the mainstream media faces when uncorroborated reports emerge in today's high-speed world of talk radio, talking heads and incessant Internet updates.

Newspaper and television reporters once had finite and identifiable competition, most of which played by similar ground rules. Now, they're doing battle with untold numbers of bloggers, online sleuths and partisan radio pundits.

The rules have changed, journalists say. The problem? No one is quite sure what they are.

"There are no easy answers," said Al May, a former political reporter and the interim director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. "We have less time to deal with everything. In the old days, we had time to deal with it."

Rumors have always been part of politics, said Kelly McBride, a member of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute, a journalism education center. Now, they move at warp speed, and the media must consider how to compete with allegations made by unnamed sources and reported by unknown people.

"The Internet has changed the speed at which those rumors are spread," Ms. McBride said. "The speed at which we do news has changed. We're constantly on deadline."

Internet speculation can quickly become feeding frenzy as it makes its way up the media food chain, moving from online reports to radio talk shows and foreign tabloids before finally making its way into traditional media.

No sources

Case in point: On Thursday, the Drudge Report Web site published allegations that Mr. Kerry had an affair with a young woman. Matt Drudge's story named no sources, did not identify the woman and offered few details. Mr. Drudge did not respond to a request for an interview Friday.

But within hours, conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were discussing the report on their radio shows. Several British tabloids rushed the story into their Friday editions.

Television networks and most American newspapers held off – for at least one day.

Robert W. Mong Jr., president and editor of The Dallas Morning News , said newspapers must maintain their standards of fairness and balance – even if others don't do the same.

"In a story like this, it's much better to be cautious and deliberative, regardless of what everybody else is doing," he said. "Being expedient is almost never a good idea. People make mistakes when they become expedient."

A small number of publications took a different approach. The Philadelphia Daily News was one of the few newspapers in the country Friday to mention it. In a short story, the paper detailed the allegations, noting in the sixth paragraph: "Nobody has been able to confirm that it was true."

Hard to ignore

Daily News Editor Zack Stalberg said his newspaper simply printed the news of the day.

"In the end, it seemed crazy to ignore it completely because half the journalists in America were out there trying to chase down this story," he said. "It was written in a way that nothing was confirmed, and it gave some valuable background."

The Daily News' rival paper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, did not report that Friday. Mr. Stalberg, who describes his paper as a feisty, urban tabloid, said he had no second thoughts about his decision.

"American newspapers are hurt by their conservatism," Mr. Stalberg said. "The public is more sophisticated than newspapers give them credit for."

Larry Sabato, author of the book Feeding Frenzy and director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, said journalists did not have the facts to back up the story.

"I read the Drudge Report, and there wasn't a shred of evidence there," he said. "You must have proof. Period."

Dr. Sabato acknowledged, "it's impossible to contain a story like this," but he said insufficient checks and balances exist to ensure the quality of the information circulated by many sources.

"We're slip-sliding into the sewer," he said.

Although the Internet has accelerated the speed at which rumors are spread, journalists have faced similar ethical dilemmas in the past. During Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign, the mainstream media struggled with whether to follow a supermarket tabloid's report of an alleged affair with Gennifer Flowers.

During Mr. Clinton's presidency, the White House counsel's office prepared a report, "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce," detailing theories on how unsubstantiated rumors become "real stories."

Ask questions later

Dr. Sabato said that many in the media seem to broadcast first, and ask questions later.

"We just seem condemned to repeat the same old mistakes year after year and then have press seminars to wring our hands about it," he said.

The result, he said, is that politicians no longer can reasonably expect any degree of privacy.

"Nothing is sacred. Nothing is off limits," he said. "I tell my students, not only should they watch what they're doing in college, they need to think carefully about what's on their permanent record from kindergarten."

But Phil Boyce, program director for WABC in New York and for the Sean Hannity Show, said the Kerry story was fair game. Mr. Drudge, who runs a popular Web site, was interviewed Thursday on Mr. Hannity's show.

Traditional media outlets are simply too slow and too cautious, Mr. Boyce said.

"Newspapers are frequently a few days behind the power curve," he said. "A lot of things happen on talk radio first. Talk radio is more spontaneous."

Thursday, Mr. Hannity devoted most of his three-hour show to the Kerry speculation.

While newspaper executives are still contemplating the news, radio is already moving the story forward, Mr. Boyce said.

"We don't have a bunch of editors sitting around a big table with furrowed brows, saying, 'Gee I don't think we should go with it," he said.

Most newspapers editors reached that conclusion on Thursday. But after Mr. Kerry flatly denied the affair in interviews Friday, several media outlets began broadcasting and printing his denial with brief summaries of the original Internet report.

CNN – despite Mr. Dobbs' adamant declarations – was among the media outlets that went with the story Friday afternoon.

[Chiwas]

I don't understand why a candidate has to be a saint but a President has not. (From whatever party both situations).

[mavsman]

Neither do I, Chiwas.

So, the guy maybe cheated on his wife. With the exception of his family, this has an impact on exactly nobody's lives. What makes it any more newsworthy or more important than the idle talk of surburban housewifes when they see the local bimbo wearing her tightest pants?

Besides, almost every statistic on the matter says that at least 60% of men cheat on their wives, so what should the headline be? "Politician guy does nothing unusual!"?

I'm glad that the media chooses to focus on real news that are of significance for a lot of people like for example the record US trade deficit, that will force hundreds of thousand of people around the globe into unemployment, or South Korea sending 3000 troops into Iraq, which means that a lot of Korean moms won't be seeing their kids again.

[MavKikiNYC]

Two points:

1) Personal character is and always will be a legitimate issue in elections. There will be times when enough voters may either be ignorant of the facts or may choose to discount the character issue to such an extent that a president like Clinton (or a senator like Clinton, or a senator like any Kennedy) gets elected. But many voters will want to make some sort of character assessment about a political candidate, and compare his/her behavior to their own, or at least to what the voter belives to be right.

This is completely understandable to me. Voters may not understand all the complexities of an issue like national defense, or jobs creation, or rebuilding a government in Iraq, or tax cuts, or economic stimulae ( I know I don't understand everything about these issues, and I read and follow most of these issues pretty closely). So when faced with a choice, voters may very rightly and logically seek to get a read on a more personal level--how do they relate to the candiate? How closely does he/she represent their views? Would he/she do what I (the voter) would do in the same situation? If a voter places a high significance on marital fidelity as an index of personal character, that is: 1) completely his/her right; and 2) actually pretty reasonable.

Voters who don't value personal character, or who, for example, don't place a high value on marital fidelity as an indicator of personal character, are free to discount these issues. But the voters who do are completely within their right and reason to do so.

2) Kerry's alleged indiscretions would have occurred within the last 2-3 years, if I'm reading the timeline correctly, which would mean that his propensity to lie to his wife his very recent, perhaps even current and ongoing, making it, for those who value personal character, an all-the-more salient indicator of his trustworthiness. An extra-mariital affair by Kerry in the last couple of years, especially in the wake of the fatally irresponsible Clinton incident(s), would cast a cloud on his personal character AND his political judgment. IMO, this incident would be FAR more relevant and revealing than his anti-war activities from 30 years ago, because they represent the CURRENT man.

Simiarly, the Democrats pathetically tired attempts to trash Bush the President with some kind of sketchy, insubstantial, exaggerated, unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable shadow-accusations (by the piece of trash Michael Moore, no less), by Bush the National Guardsman 30 years ago just don't hold up.

Bush has definitely shown that he's up to the challenge of acting as Commander in Chief in war time, with decisive responses to acts of war/terrorism (no longer differentiated) that the amoral, character-defective Clinton would never have been able to
accomplish.

If voters choose to examine Bush's accomplishments as a war-time president, and then compare those accomplishments to Clinton's failure to act, they will very likely be left to wonder about whether Kerry would act as President more like Bush, or more like Clinton. My guess is that the comparison will not be favorable for Kerry.

[Mavdog]

Personal character is and always will be a legitimate issue in elections....Voters who don't value personal character, or who, for example, don't place a high value on marital fidelity as an indicator of personal character, are free to discount these issues. But the voters who do are completely within their right and reason to do so.

Personal character should be one of the criteria in evaluating a candidate. Personal character is not decided however on if a person is active sexually (which frankly is an issue between he and his spouse), it is a deeper question.
To make as factual rumors such as this which have NO evidence shows more about those who publicize the rumors than those who the rumor is about.

Kerry's alleged indiscretions would have occurred within the last 2-3 years, if I'm reading the timeline correctly, which would mean that his propensity to lie to his wife his very recent, perhaps even current and ongoing

So now Kerry has not only been judged guilty of an affair (lack of any true evidence? "screw the facts" they scream) but also lying to his wife (were there those who heard the conversations between husband and wife? "screw the facts" they scream). Rush to judgement by those who are adept at the use of personal attack politics...doesn't it make you question the "personal character" of those who use these personal attacks on their opponent?

[Drbio]

THe thing that irks me is that if this rumor was floated about Bush, it would be on EVERY news station and newspaper in the world. But, since it happened to media darling liberal democrat Kerry, everyone rushes to use the "cautious" approach. That is where the liberal media bais lies.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Personal character is not decided however on if a person is active sexually (which frankly is an issue between he and his spouse), it is a deeper question.

most people will include sexual behavior when judging morality. Especially if the person being judged vows to behave one way and then behaves another.

So now Kerry has not only been judged guilty of an affair (lack of any true evidence? "screw the facts" they scream) but also lying to his wife (were there those who heard the conversations between husband and wife? "screw the facts" they scream).

If he had the affair, but did not lie to his wife about having an affair (hiding something like that is lying about it), then an affair had to be an accepted part of their marriage. Most people would view that as immoral.

[Mavdog]

most people will include sexual behavior when judging morality. Especially if the person being judged vows to behave one way and then behaves another...If he had the affair, but did not lie to his wife about having an affair (hiding something like that is lying about it), then an affair had to be an accepted part of their marriage. Most people would view that as immoral.

I don't know what "vows" were made, nor do you.

If you wish to be so judgemental on what other people decide is acceptable for each other, just how immoral do you see someone who actively engages in spreading uncorroborated, personal attack rumors about a person when not one shred of proof has been provided?

Now that is something that "most people" should see as immoral.

[FreshJive]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I don't know what "vows" were made, nor do you.

If you wish to be so judgemental on what other people decide is acceptable for each other, just how immoral do you see someone who actively engages in spreading uncorroborated, personal attack rumors about a person when not one shred of proof has been provided?

Now that is something that "most people" should see as immoral.

Just because we weren't at the wedding doesn't mean we can't say we know what basic vows were made. Infidelity is a court accepted basis for divorce, so I think it is safe to assume that marriage implies a promise of fidelity. Also, Kerry's wife has been quoted as threatening violence against Kerry if he cheated on her, so if he was cheating it would only be reasonable to assume he was lying about it.

As far as Drudge goes, I think everyone knows that his site is a gossip site. He was only passing along what he heard. He didn't report it as fact. Hell, even Wesley Clark mentioned the scandel. I don't see anything immoral here.

[Mavdog]

Just because we weren't at the wedding doesn't mean we can't say we know what basic vows were made.

"vows" such as this are typically made in private between two people.
remember, no one has been shown to have done ANYTHING yet.

Infidelity is a court accepted basis for divorce, so I think it is safe to assume that marriage implies a promise of fidelity.

Fidelity is honouring your committments to another. You may be "safe" with any assumption you wish to make, but to assume you are knowedgeable about the committments other's (who you don't know) make to each other is NOT "safe" by any means.

Also, Kerry's wife has been quoted as threatening violence against Kerry if he cheated on her, so if he was cheating it would only be reasonable to assume he was lying about it.

That statement by the Senator's wife only supports a conclusion that the entire rumor (keep remembering that no FACTS or PROOF has been given) is bogus. She would have reacted, and reacted quite strongly and aggressively it seems, if this were true.

As far as Drudge goes, I think everyone knows that his site is a gossip site. He was only passing along what he heard. He didn't report it as fact. Hell, even Wesley Clark mentioned the scandel. I don't see anything immoral here.

oh yeah, that's a wonderful service Drudge (and I guess we can include with Mr. Drudge The Star, National Enquirer, other rags that have stories about alien family members) do for us. You follow suit by taking a RUMOR that Clark said something "off the record" and have made it now FACT! (wait, are you with Drudge?) So we should just publicise any "gossip", any rumor, no immorality in that eh? hmm...

OK, how about this: hallibuton won it's Iraqi work on non-competitive awards. Who made these decisions about the contracts? The White House? They overcharged the US Gov. millions. I heard a rumor that Cheney received some of that $. Most of the deal was done in private meetings and Cheney won't provide the minutes of those meetings. So there's overcharges, we don't know where it went, Cheney is acting protective, it MUST be TRUE! I bet I can get a special prosecutor before the elections...
Now, I don't have any evidence, but why should there be anything "immoral" about putting this rumor out as a news story?
Hint: It would be wrong, immoral, to accuse Cheney without any evidence.

To use gossip and rumor to damage a political rival is taking one's morality to a very, very low level...perhaps to amorality. It is indicative of a candidate who does not wish to debate their record.

[FishForLunch]

You are right Gen Clark is immoral to spread rumors to the press

[Mavdog]

You are right Gen Clark is immoral to spread rumors to the press

Good point. therefore Drudge is immoral.

[FreshJive]

Mav Dog, if you are certain that the rumors aren't true because Kerry's wife would have killed him by now, then why do you worry with creating a specious semantical argument on the definition of "vows"? You sound like Clinton and his definition of "sexual relations". Its seems that you are crafting your argument to fit what ever scenario ends up being true, because you are a Democrat and you hate the Republicans. I personally have no allegiance to either party, and I also don't necessarily believe that a leader must be perfect in his personal life to be an effective leader. However, I realize that some people find these things as important factors when deciding on who to vote for, so like it or not they are going to be reported.

As for Drudge and the imorality of someone passing on what they have heard from multiple sources, you can't be serious. Drudge was reporting this as a "developing "story. The reader is assumed to be intelligent enough to realize that it might be true or it might not. Stories like this come up on all news channels all day. Even when they aren't fully proven. Bush is a deserter, Halliburton is overcharging the gov, Condit killed his intern, etc....When I watch CNN, I understand that I am getting a liberal viewpoint. When I watch Fox I understand I am getting the conservative side. I don't think you are giving people enough credit to be able to figure things out for themselves.

[Mavdog]

Mav Dog, if you are certain that the rumors aren't true because Kerry's wife would have killed him by now, then why do you worry with creating a specious semantical argument on the definition of "vows"?

Worry? what, me worry?
The point is that if a married couple decide they want to have an open marriage where they give each other liberty to have sexual relations with others, they are not "cheating" nor are they violating the "vows" to each other. Remember, NO ONE has been shown to have had extra marital relations...or had you forgot?

You sound like Clinton and his definition of "sexual relations". Its seems that you are crafting your argument to fit what ever scenario ends up being true, because you are a Democrat and you hate the Republicans.

No, my argument is that the publicist such as Drudge SHOULD NOT throw out rumor as factual news. As far as your assertion of me being a Demo an "hating Republicans", it is false. I have voted for both parties during my time as a voter. I just hate sleaseballs who pretend to be journalists when they are not.

I personally have no allegiance to either party, and I also don't necessarily believe that a leader must be perfect in his personal life to be an effective leader. However, I realize that some people find these things as important factors when deciding on who to vote for, so like it or not they are going to be reported.

When there is actual facts to support a story let er rip. To use a rumor as a foil against a candidate is unethical. If people are so narrow minded as to judge a candidate's suitability for public office by if they have a monogamous relationship with their spose, go ahead. Of course, that's part of the reason we have such poor candidates...

As for Drudge and the imorality of someone passing on what they have heard from multiple sources, you can't be serious. Drudge was reporting this as a "developing "story. The reader is assumed to be intelligent enough to realize that it might be true or it might not.

Read the Drudge article again. The framing was not as you alude, it was portrayed as the story that will bring down Kerry's campaign. As if it were indeed fact.

Stories like this come up on all news channels all day. Even when they aren't fully proven.

NO major news org ran with this as the truth. The true news orgs want some substantiation before running a story...this had NONE.

Bush is a deserter, Halliburton is overcharging the gov, Condit killed his intern, etc....When I watch CNN, I understand that I am getting a liberal viewpoint. When I watch Fox I understand I am getting the conservative side. I don't think you are giving people enough credit to be able to figure things out for themselves

I am not going to give the general public that much credit for their intelligence, sorry, but the average person is very, very uninformed about the politicians and the way our government is used for their self interest.

As far as the Bush AWOL issue, my opinion is that 1) Terry MacAuliffe was wrong to bring up this issue now, as it has been looked over many times without any credibility. He acted no better than Drudge. Clark should have confronted Moore when Moore made the claim, too.

As far as Halliburton, well, just today in the Wall Street Journal, a bastion of conservatism, is an article about ANOTHER contract of theirs (food deliveries?) where overcharging has been uncovered by the GAO. That makes 3, or is that 4, times so far. This is a validated story that needs further investigation. The White House set themselves in harms way on this by not using competitive bids to award the work...now they appear culpable. Very bad form IMHO.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I am not going to give the general public that much credit for their intelligence, sorry, but the average person is very, very uninformed about the politicians and the way our government is used for their self interest.

I am sorry but I had to respond to this.... You are making assumptions with that statement Mavdog.

It's like the politicians that don't want to privatize Social Security because they "know how" to invest my money better than me. Oh yeah? And how do you know that?

I'm sorry but you don't. So stop pretending that you do. It is arrogant and unacceptable.

[Mavdog]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Mavdog
I am not going to give the general public that much credit for their intelligence, sorry, but the average person is very, very uninformed about the politicians and the way our government is used for their self interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sorry but I had to respond to this.... You are making assumptions with that statement Mavdog.

Actually I am making an observation.

It's like the politicians that don't want to privatize Social Security because they "know how" to invest my money better than me. Oh yeah? And how do you know that?

I'm sorry but you don't. So stop pretending that you do. It is arrogant and unacceptable.

Not following you on this...how is the position of some politicos that they don't want the individual making decisions about their SS investments germaine to my observation? My point is that the average person doesn't pay enough attention to what our politicos are up to.

From what I've read, their position against privatizing SS is based on the premise that the general public doen't understand the risk factors in the market, and can be swayed by the lure of higher ROI without the commensurate higher risk involved. Not that I agree with their position, but how is this the same as my observation that the average voter is uninformed on the voting record/general effectiveness/financing sources of their campaigns of their elected representitive or candidate?
And how is that observation "arrogant"?

[u2sarajevo]

It is the same because in both instances a holier than thou assumption is being made.

That in itself is arrogant, both questions answered with one sentence.

And as for your "observation" of the intelligence of the "general public"... gee thank god we have you as a watchdog. I had no idea what me, an average person, actually knows about politicians and the way our government is used for "their" self interest.

Thanks!

[Drbio]

One of these things is not like the other......one of these things is kind of the same....

[mavsman]

Actually, if the "general public" is in fact well-informed, intelligent and able to decide for themselves, I'm not afraid that the turnout in this election will surpass last times whopping 51%.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: mavsman
Actually, if the "general public" is in fact well-informed, intelligent and able to decide for themselves, I'm not afraid that the turnout in this election will surpass last times whopping 51%.

So you are saying that the general public can prove they are indeed "intelligent, well-informed" people that can make decisions on their own by going out and vote?

Wow.... and I thought mavdog was being arrogant. [img]i/expressions/moon.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: mavsman
Actually, if the "general public" is in fact well-informed, intelligent and able to decide for themselves, I'm not afraid that the turnout in this election will surpass last times whopping 51%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of course, that's 51% of the registered voters, which is 76% of the population who are able to vote. So 1/3 of the eligible voters actually cared enough to go out and cast a ballot in the 2000 Presidential election, the closest election in the past 50 years.

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
So you are saying that the general public can prove they are indeed "intelligent, well-informed" people that can make decisions on their own by going out and vote?

Wow.... and I thought mavdog was being arrogant.

"arrogant"? you confuse arrogance with realistic observation.

voter turnout sure seems to be a legitimate, credible statistic. Of course, some do better, in Texas only 43% of the reg. voters voted, so about 1/4 of the voters eligible to vote determined the election. hmm, what about that 75%???

I guess in your view the other 3/4 (or 2/3 in the country) were so well informed that they didn't want to vote...or were so intelligent that they decided they did not want any of the candidates who were on the ballot...were so busy with their charitiable activities they couldn't tear themselves away from giving back to their community...were so very much able to think for themselves they decided they didn't need to select a candidate from the many on the ballot as they are all the same...or, could it be? they flat out didn't care enough, didn't take the time away from watching Survivor to learn anything about their candidates, or were not able to understand the issues anyway so they just turned it off?

Clearly it's the later. Good stat Mavsman.

[mavsman]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo<brSo you are saying that the general public can prove they are indeed "intelligent, well-informed" people that can make decisions on their own by going out and vote?

Actually, yeah, do. But I know a lot of my fellow countrymen don't. kay, they grew up in the GDR, but hey, Democracy ain't that bad of a concept once you get used to it.

[seelenjaeger]

Well, just that Democracy depends on information and interest, and both are either decreasing or in a damn corrupt condition ...

The involvement of major enterprises in media networks, papers and stuff is making those "information" sources a liability. When economic reasons dictate the view which is presented it becomes very hard to get things sorted out on a high journalistic standard.

The journalistic standard in Europe is already on a pretty shaky level, but US media is close to beeing propagandic (to one side or the other, who cares?).

[seelenjaeger]

Oh - and just out of curiosity ...

Since some politicians are strongly using their christianity and their religious values, wouldn´t it be immoral then to have sexual intercourse to more than one woman at all and to have intercourse before beeing married, and to call wrong testimony on someone, and ...

Okay, okay ... I already stop asking.

[Chiwas]

Actually, I think ony the fax part is the problem. Everything else could be made with some tricks.

(Very good cartoon, anyway)

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: mavsman
Neither do I, Chiwas.

So, the guy maybe cheated on his wife. With the exception of his family, this has an impact on exactly nobody's lives. What makes it any more newsworthy or more important than the idle talk of surburban housewifes when they see the local bimbo wearing her tightest pants?

Besides, almost every statistic on the matter says that at least 60% of men cheat on their wives, so what should the headline be? "Politician guy does nothing unusual!"?

I'm glad that the media chooses to focus on real news that are of significance for a lot of people like for example the record US trade deficit, that will force hundreds of thousand of people around the globe into unemployment, or South Korea sending 3000 troops into Iraq, which means that a lot of Korean moms won't be seeing their kids again.

Well I for one happen to disagree. I'm not exactly comfortable with the character of an adulterer. So 60% of the men cheat on their wives, I wouldn't trust them either.

But I do agree with you that the media chooses not to focus issues like how kerry would ask for french permission before using the US military. How he was willing to allow Sadaam to KEEP kuwait in 91, but then wanted to overthrow him later, then voted to go to war with iraq then decided that we shouldn't attempt to re-contruct the country or support the men in the field.

Typical dimocrat liberal however, cut and run.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I don't know what "vows" were made, nor do you.

If you wish to be so judgemental on what other people decide is acceptable for each other, just how immoral do you see someone who actively engages in spreading uncorroborated, personal attack rumors about a person when not one shred of proof has been provided?

Now that is something that "most people" should see as immoral.

You mean like terry mccaulliffe and the bush national guard kerfluffle?

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: FreshJive

Just because we weren't at the wedding doesn't mean we can't say we know what basic vows were made. Infidelity is a court accepted basis for divorce, so I think it is safe to assume that marriage implies a promise of fidelity. Also, Kerry's wife has been quoted as threatening violence against Kerry if he cheated on her, so if he was cheating it would only be reasonable to assume he was lying about it.

As far as Drudge goes, I think everyone knows that his site is a gossip site. He was only passing along what he heard. He didn't report it as fact. Hell, even Wesley Clark mentioned the scandel. I don't see anything immoral here.

It's only immoral because it's about a liberal dimocrat. The dimocrats can call bush any name they want, make any kind of accusation and it's ok. No one calls them out about it, in fact the most outrageous statements are condoned. You know like Bush was a DESERTER, said by I believe it was michael moore at some dimocrate fund-raiser. NO PROBLEMO the dimocrat stepped right on up and called ole' Mike Moore a great supporter. Yup, the company you keep.

[dude1394]

OK, how about this: hallibuton won it's Iraqi work on non-competitive awards. Who made these decisions about the contracts? The White House? They overcharged the US Gov. millions. I heard a rumor that Cheney received some of that $. Most of the deal was done in private meetings and Cheney won't provide the minutes of those meetings. So there's overcharges, we don't know where it went, Cheney is acting protective, it MUST be TRUE! I bet I can get a special prosecutor before the elections...
Now, I don't have any evidence, but why should there be anything "immoral" about putting this rumor out as a news story?
Hint: It would be wrong, immoral, to accuse Cheney without any evidence.

To use gossip and rumor to damage a political rival is taking one's morality to a very, very low level...perhaps to amorality. It is indicative of a candidate who does not wish to debate their record.

There were RUMOURS of over-charges and they were on the front-page of the NYTIMES. Of course it had to be pointed out for the zillionth time that "Halliburton, whom vice president Cheney was president of". Nah, no double-standard there.

[FreshJive]

If, as you state, people aren't intelligent enough to properly decipher news stories being reported as fact from news stories being reported as devolping uncorrobarated rumors and discussions, because, as you say"they don't vote" (many intelligent people do not vote and many dumbasses vote BTW); then, why are you whining so much about the reporting of this story? According to you these idiots who aren't voting probably aren't paying attention to the Drudge report.

NO major news org ran with this as the truth.

Wrong, EVERY major network and media source reported the same basic story that Drudge did. As Madape explained on the other thread the story was that media and political insiders were discussing that a scandel might be taking place. These are undisputable facts. "You keep saying remeber nothing has been proven to be true" I have freely admitted this, and this is the way it has been reported, as has been explained to you over and over and over........

As far as your assertion of me being a Demo an "hating Republicans", it is false.

Hopefully you will excuse me if I don't exactly believe you that this is entirely true.

As far as the Halliburton thing goes, I am not in the know about this latest allegation, so I can't comment on wether it has merit or not. But I know that many of the previous allegations are totallly false. Halliburton had no control of the price of the fuel. Halliburton was told by the US and Kuwaiti gov which fuel company they had to buy the fuel from. Also, the money that Chaney recieves from Halliburton is deferred salary payments. It is a tax trick. He is no longer financially tied to the financial success or failure of Halliburton. He gets this money even if Halliburton goes under. It was earned well before he even thought of running for Vice President.

[Mavdog]

It's only immoral because it's about a liberal dimocrat. The dimocrats can call bush any name they want, make any kind of accusation and it's ok. No one calls them out about it, in fact the most outrageous statements are condoned. You know like Bush was a DESERTER, said by I believe it was michael moore at some dimocrate fund-raiser. NO PROBLEMO the dimocrat stepped right on up and called ole' Mike Moore a great supporter. Yup, the company you keep.

As I posted previously, Clark was wrong in NOT rebuking Moore when Moore made the statement (at the event where Moore endorsed Clark) calling Bush a "deserter". See the column I posted (on the other thread) by Oliphant which eloquently says the same. Sorry, no "condoning" and no double standard.

[Mavdog]

Dude, did you miss the irony?

originally posted by Mavdog--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, how about this: hallibuton won it's Iraqi work on non-competitive awards. Who made these decisions about the contracts? The White House? They overcharged the US Gov. millions. I heard a rumor that Cheney received some of that $. Most of the deal was done in private meetings and Cheney won't provide the minutes of those meetings. So there's overcharges, we don't know where it went, Cheney is acting protective, it MUST be TRUE! I bet I can get a special prosecutor before the elections...
Now, I don't have any evidence, but why should there be anything "immoral" about putting this rumor out as a news story?
Hint: It would be wrong, immoral, to accuse Cheney without any evidence.

To use gossip and rumor to damage a political rival is taking one's morality to a very, very low level...perhaps to amorality. It is indicative of a candidate who does not wish to debate their record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

originally posted by Dude1394:
There were RUMOURS of over-charges and they were on the front-page of the NYTIMES. Of course it had to be pointed out for the zillionth time that "Halliburton, whom vice president Cheney was president of". Nah, no double-standard there

Those "rumors" have been validated by the GAO, and they include not only overcharges for fuel but also for the food rations that were never put on the soldier's tables. The manner in which those contracts were let leaves the VP in an unflattering light due to his past association with Halliburton.

The point that I was making (and apparently you missed) is that an immoral politico would take these facts surrounding the KBR subsidiary of Halliburton and attempt to tie it to Cheney. ie, they would use rumor and innuendo (such as was done against Kerry last week) as foil to damage the image of their opponent; that using such tactics, as opposed to actually focusing on the issues, is immoral and wrong (as I said in the original post).

[Dooby]

Drudge Pitches, Media Swings: ‘It’s Too Easy,’ Says Web Gossip
by Joe Hagan


Wednesday, Feb. 18

On Thursday, Feb. 12, when right-wing supercybergossip Matt Drudge unleashed the gravity-defying headline declaring that Senator John Kerry’s campaign for President was headed for a 27-year-old speed bump named Alexandra Polier, the TV news hordes reacted like Mr. Drudge’s story was the frog-creature that had come crawling out of a fetid swamp.

"It belongs where it is, on the Drudge Report, because it’s crap," one NBC reporter spat.

Ribbit.

For MSNBC senior political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell, that sort of indignation sounded familiar—in fact, it echoed a line from a script he wrote for an upcoming episode of NBC’s The West Wing, set to air on Feb. 25, in which the Drudge Report rattles the Beltway with rumors of—what else?—a sex scandal. While it was written in November of 2003, Mr. O’Donnell said the press reaction to the recent Drudge bombshell fit neatly into his plot line.

"The standard reaction to the Drudge Report publicly is, ‘Oh gee, you can’t believe every crazy Web site,’" he said. "Which I think is word for word one of the reactions I wrote into my script—by a character who then privately says, ‘I assume the Drudge Report is right.’ And that’s the perfect description of the way the Drudge Report is received."

In Mr. O’Donnell’s West Wing episode, the Drudge Report "reveals" that The New York Times Magazine is working on a story that exposes the sordid truth behind Vice President Hoynes’ resignation. Another Times reporter publicly discredits it, but privately believes Mr. Drudge.

Reached for comment, Mr. Drudge told NYTV that he had not seen a single episode of the NBC show and was immediately concerned with copyright infringement. "They can’t use my image if they use my Web site," he snapped. "It’s going to be a scandal!"

But when he calmed down, Mr. Drudge agreed with Mr. O’Donnell’s premise, that the media publicly shunned the messenger while coveting the message.

"That’s a very close mirror to the last five days," he said, "because people in Washington were fully aware of the story and when I did it—‘Oh shit!’"

"I don’t mind being pooh-poohed and being called the slimiest person on earth by James Carville," he added.

Mr. Drudge said he was deeply amused watching the press react to him and was especially delighted by Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace, who told WABC Radio on Thursday, Feb. 12, that he declined to discuss the Drudge Report rumor because it was only gossip—but later dedicated an entire panel discussion to it on his show. Mr. Drudge laughed while playing a recording of Mr. Wallace saying, "I’m in the news business, not in the gossip business," over the phone to NYTV.

"It’s too easy," chuckled Mr. Drudge.

In Mr. O’Donnell’s view, Mr. Drudge’s gossip acted like a media feedback loop: Mr. Drudge was tipped off by the media itself—specifically, Mr. Drudge claimed, Time magazine, ABC News and The Hill were investigating an as-yet-unsubstantiated tip that Senator Kerry engaged in an extramarital affair, which prompted the rest of the media to follow suit and ultimately flush the rumor out into the open before the facts were nailed down, driving it to a conclusion—in this case, a phalanx of reporters to a suburb in Nairobi and a denial by the woman in question, Ms. Polier, on Monday, Feb. 16. But don’t tell Mr. Drudge that that’s the end of the story.

"Oh, really?" said Mr. Drudge. "Monica Lewinsky signed an affidavit. We haven’t seen Alex’s affidavit yet."

In January 1998, he noted, Ms. Lewinsky signed a legal confession about her affair with Bill Clinton, unlike Ms. Polier, who has only made statements to reporters.

Mr. Drudge "tells you what the media is about to do," said Mr. O’Donnell. "Who else knows that? He says what the media is going to do and then they do it …. If his credibility wasn’t so high, there wouldn’t have been any confusion about how to handle this non-story."

"His batting average on that is so good that the press believes what Drudge is reporting about the press," he added. "Drudge’s report was not about Kerry, it was about the press."

While the TV news anchors and talking heads may use Mr. Drudge as the ethical whipping boy, loudly washing their hands of him on the air and in print, the media privately tends to trust his reports exactly because of their origins: the backstage of the media itself. "It says something about Drudge’s credibility," said Mr. O’Donnell. "It’s huge! It’s very, very powerful. That’s why other media outlets that did pick it up, they were going with Matt Drudge’s credibility. In general, over time, that’s not a bad bet."

The rumor’s four-day life span, and its gingerly tip-toeing path through TV in that time, offered a look down the throat of the American media, as the rumor poked its way through the tabloid strata, starting with carefully worded innuendoes and arched eyebrows on evening programs on Thursday, Feb. 12, to Senator Kerry’s denial on Don Imus’ radio show on Friday, Feb. 13, to the King Kong headlines in the New York Post and Daily News (and a 20th-paragraph mention in a New York Times article) on Saturday, Feb. 14, to its turn on NBC’s The McLaughlin Group as "the unmentionable" on Sunday morning, Feb. 15.

In keeping with the West Wing script, the attacks on Mr. Drudge’s credibility came from the very news organizations that were either working on it already or who were getting reporters on the case and pronto—even if they were denying it outright, as ABC News’ The Note did on Friday, Feb. 13 when it posted the headline: "The (Democratic) Elephant in the Room: DEVELOPING(?) … The Answer Is ‘No.’"

On the eve of Mr. Kerry’s denial on Imus in the Morning, TV anchors and correspondents wrinkled their noses at the foul, unnamed thing in the room. That night, CNN’s Aaron Brown read an item on NewsNight saying, "The big political news of the day" was the impending endorsement of Senator John Kerry by General Wesley Clark, adding, "We emphasize news."

Message: We’re not reporting these vile rumors that you may have heard about, for we are a legitimate news organization, above such scandal-mongering. (Next on Larry King Live: Laci Peterson!)

NBC News’ David Shuster cited an unnamed strategist who said that Governor Howard Dean was staying in the race in case Mr. Kerry’s campaign "implodes." Come again?

Over on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly dismissed "slime" politics from his lofty podium of dignity. "Already rumors about the candidates are flying around the Internet," he said. "And that kind of stuff will continue because the media loves it. Any whiff of scandal means higher ratings and more circulation. So the press vultures can’t get enough of character assassination."

Of course, Mr. O’Reilly’s method of getting the news out was the oldest trick in the book: the double-fake reverse mention.

"Nobody was talking about it at that time," observed Howard Fineman, the Newsweek chief political correspondent and MSNBC’s Hardball Presidential-election panelist. "He was putting it into circulation at a time when it wasn’t in major circulation. He was putting it in circulation on the most highly rated news show on cable television."

Mr. Fineman said it was a tactic from the Richard Nixon playbook: "That’s like Richard Nixon used to say, ‘Some people say I should attack so and so for being a communist, but I would never do such a thing.’"

Mr. O’Reilly, a freshly minted critic of the Iraq war, has promised an entire series of The O’Reilly Factor on "slime" in politics on future shows. Mr. O’Donnell, can you concoct a TV talk-show character for West Wing who was a drum-beater for the war but then later decided it was a bad war and then campaigned against gossip in politics and then sprouted wings and flew to heaven? Thanks. [FNC, 46, 8 p.m.]