Washington Editors: Reluctant to Publish 'D.C. Madam' Client List-(Too Many Democrats?)

Editor And Publisher ^ | 5-2-07 | Joe Strupp

[JohnG45]

Oh yeah? What about the Barrett Report?

It has been successfully buried with the help of both Republicans and Democrats. And, nobody in the press seems to care about getting it released either.

JohnG

[mtnwmn]

It’s possible that they won’t release any names until closer to the election. Then they will release the Republicans but not the Democrats. I hope the Internet can get hold of the names so that won’t work against us.

[M203M4]

DC MADAME STORY VERY HARD ON MEDIA EDITORS - MOST WANT HAPPY ENDING.

[Daveinyork]

“It’s not a story if it’s a Rat. Everybody already assumes they cavort with hookers.”

To say that Dems cavort with hookers is a redundancy.

[bcsco]

TRANSLATION: "We just don't know how many important DEMOCRATS [and well-known members of the media] are on the list, yet!!"

There, fixed it!

[advertising guy]

lol

[timydnuc]

These are the same people that would publish classified intelligence documents and get our troops killed and they don’t feel comfortable publishing a “diddle” list for a hooker! Excuse me while I go throw up!

[NorthFlaRebel]

Yeh, silly me. Who’d verify such a thing before printing it?

[advertising guy]

the drive by’s will print anything if it helps them and print a correction 2 weeks later in the auto sales section

[furquhart]

In this case, I think the media’s actually exercising some common sense. Lawyers will tend to force that onto people.

All the profits in the world than can be reaped from this will be worthless if one person successfully manages to sue them in return.

My best guess is that the list will be passed to some particularly nasty Democrat blogger - perhaps John Avirsos or whatever that queer’s name is, so that the media can, in turn, simply report on his allegations.

[ZULU]

GREAT book potential there and YES - I bet MOST of them are Dems.

Hope she writes one about this.

[ridgerunner]

Maybe it because HRC is among the people listed.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If the list was written using Word 1973, they’d be all over it.

[BARLF]

Just because this woman has a list of phone numbers doesn’t necessarily mean the user of that number used her service.I think the media (if they have this list) should be very careful about printing it.

[Sicon]

We would have to see who is on the list, we would have to look at matters of fairness

IOTW, if there are 10 times as many dems as Republicans on the list, it would only be "fair" to publish an equal number of names from both parties. If, on the other hand, the ratio is 10 to 1 the other way, it would only be "fair" to publish 10 Republican names to every 1 dem name.

[glorgau]

"We would have to see who is on the list, we would have to look at matters of fairness, and of accuracy."

Code words for selective release.

[weegee]

One “conservative” has already been run out of office by ABCDisney’s partisan release of the news. Release all of the names.

The DNC cannot be allowed to continue colluding with the MSM on “facts”.

[weegee]

Releasing the names isn’t about “newspaper sales and ratings”, it’s about destroying the public and political careers of political enemies.

“Take ‘em out” and then figure out how to settle the tab.

[weegee]

Fake but accurateTM.

No one is citing “McCarthyism” as a ploy of giving up names when called on the stand, giving up names to smear them politically even if there is no merit to the claim.

No, the media is more concerned about who paid a hooker than who is an active member in the Communist party.

[mikey_hates_everything]

That Roanoke newspaper is good at printing lists of people who have firearms permits. Or how about NBC? They didn’t hesitate to blast out that wacko’s diatribe before he killed 32 at Va Tech when they received it.

Isn’t the “list” just phone records anyway (numbers, no names)?