Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics Dilemma
Ron Rosenbaum.com ^ | 10/29/07 | Ron Rosenbaum

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.


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008electionbias; abedin; bimboeruption; file13; huma; humaabedin; latimesscandalrumor; mediacollusion; mediaethics; octobersurprise; ratcrime; rumorcentral; yourrighttoknow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-426 next last
Since the LA Times is actually debating whether to release the story or not, I'm betting it's Obama
1 posted on 10/30/2007 6:09:18 PM PDT by jimboster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Shocking Inside DC Scandal

Hillary is a lesbian? No, that's not shocking. You're right, It has to be Obama.

2 posted on 10/30/2007 6:12:00 PM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG-49) Freedom's Fortress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Or Chelsea's real last name is Hubble
3 posted on 10/30/2007 6:12:09 PM PDT by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Pictures of Ron Paul and Catherine Zeta-Jones? Shocking! If only I (or Maureen Dowd) could recall what she looks like.


4 posted on 10/30/2007 6:12:11 PM PDT by steve8714 (How can we make our children proud today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Could be rugmuncher Hildebeeste.


5 posted on 10/30/2007 6:12:39 PM PDT by dsc (There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Obviously fiction. Journalists don’t encounter ethical or moral dilemmas.


6 posted on 10/30/2007 6:12:45 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

That’s what I was thinking ... clintoninc.


7 posted on 10/30/2007 6:12:57 PM PDT by Tuscaloosa Goldfinch (If MY people who are called by MY name -- the ball's in our court, folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

It’s Edwards, verifiably.

Google around. Late September the Enquirer picked it up.


8 posted on 10/30/2007 6:13:10 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster; neverdem; MHGinTN
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.

“The reflection, judgment, and standards” of the MSM begin, stay, and end at WHATEVER will benefit the liberal/democrat/socialist/communist/internationalist (but I repeat myself) candidate.....

9 posted on 10/30/2007 6:13:39 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

My first thought, if they’re keeping it quiet it must be a dem, but on second thought, it could be a pubbie and they are just waiting to see if he wins the primary before they release it which would help the dem candidate.


10 posted on 10/30/2007 6:14:40 PM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

We don’t even need to ask if it’s a Dem or a Pubbie.

The answer to that is obvious enough.


11 posted on 10/30/2007 6:14:43 PM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
involving a leading Presidential candidate Hillary, and Giuliani.

So Rudy's actually gay, or Hillary's actually straight.

12 posted on 10/30/2007 6:14:48 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
“Everyone knows” meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world.

Q: Where have we heard this before? (Hint: Andrea Mitchell)

A: That "everyone knows" Valerie Plame has a desk job at the CIA.

Lame Plame Main Stream Media

13 posted on 10/30/2007 6:15:12 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Or they could be waiting to derail a Republican of choice should he build momentum just as the nomination process gets underway...


14 posted on 10/30/2007 6:15:33 PM PDT by CheyennePress (Non Abbiamo Bisogno)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

“Her name not to be spoken” and Janet Reno?


15 posted on 10/30/2007 6:15:35 PM PDT by Babsig (www.genesysitsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Must be a democrat. They’d wait about five seconds if it was a Republican.


16 posted on 10/30/2007 6:15:39 PM PDT by Daralundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

No, they specifically say it’s not the Edwards’ adultery scandal


17 posted on 10/30/2007 6:15:44 PM PDT by jimboster (fROM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
If the nominees are set in February, I think that one - or both - of them won't make it to November.

The system is breaking down in front of our eyes.

Bad moon rising, IMO.

18 posted on 10/30/2007 6:15:52 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Trails of trouble, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

“Or Chelsea’s real last name is Hubble”

________________________________________________________________

Everyone knows about that, it’s too obvious to remark on.


19 posted on 10/30/2007 6:16:00 PM PDT by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Its the Obama grenade....if and when he starts to tear into the Hildebeests destiny...some poor private will be told to pull the pin and toss....


20 posted on 10/30/2007 6:16:01 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

I say Edwards — and that means they were scooped by the Enquirer.


21 posted on 10/30/2007 6:16:06 PM PDT by Snickersnee (Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

“I’m betting it’s Obama”

It’s gotta be. They wouldn’t dare sink the H-beast.


22 posted on 10/30/2007 6:16:08 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

I feel that it is something regarding Obama. He and his campaign don’t seem to be acting the same, as of late.

I was guessing he had been threatened by Hillary. Still could be the case. this thing being whispered about — could be something planted by Hillary, to silence Obama.


23 posted on 10/30/2007 6:16:25 PM PDT by i_dont_chat (Your choice if you take offense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

You can safely bet that it’s not a Republican. They would never sit on a story involving a Republican candidate.


24 posted on 10/30/2007 6:16:41 PM PDT by Russ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Since the LA Times is actually debating whether to release the story or not, I'm betting it's Obama

If it is Hillary's camp gave them the info
25 posted on 10/30/2007 6:16:48 PM PDT by uncbob (m first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

They’re probably waiting to spring it at the “right” moment, which means the moment it will have maximum impact. It doesn’t have to be a fresh story, either. Hmmmm, I wonder who and what the rumor is about. Could be Obama. LOL, what if it’s HILLARY? But seriously, if this is about some old, 10-20 year old affair that the spouse already knows about and has dealt with it and moved on, and nothing has happened since, then I don’t think it’s relevant to an election, except to embarrass a candidate.


26 posted on 10/30/2007 6:17:16 PM PDT by wimpycat (Hyperbole is the opiate of the activist wacko.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Wow... I should have read more closely.


27 posted on 10/30/2007 6:18:19 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Link

28 posted on 10/30/2007 6:18:45 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Has to be a Democrap. If it was a Republican, it would be front page news all across the country.


29 posted on 10/30/2007 6:18:57 PM PDT by Ronin (Bushed out!!! Another tragic victim of BDS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Russ

Not necessarily. They would sit on a story about a Republican and spring it on the public at an opportune moment if that meant tipping the balance of an election, you can bet your sweet patootie on that.


30 posted on 10/30/2007 6:19:16 PM PDT by wimpycat (Hyperbole is the opiate of the activist wacko.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Not necessarily a story about a ‘rat, the liberals love to time the release of things damaging to the Republicans for maximum effect.


31 posted on 10/30/2007 6:19:22 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Given the hinting Rosenbaum does, there are only three serious possibilities:

1) A documented, verifiable lesbian relationship on Hillary's part; or

2) A documented, verifiable extramarital affair between Obama and a white woman,

3) A documented verifiable homosexual relationship on Obama's part .

Nothing other than those things would potentially be derailing to either campaign: given Bill's catting around, most people would (I think and I can't stand her) not hold a heterosexual affair against Hillary, and, even though Obama is seen as something of a 'mr. clean' his having an affair would not be disqualifying unless there were more to it, such as it being inter-racial or homosexual.

32 posted on 10/30/2007 6:19:38 PM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
Did John Edwards Sleep With This Lady?

If it is Edwards, BFD. He isn't a serious candidate even if Hillary and Obama drop dead.

33 posted on 10/30/2007 6:19:46 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
From the article: "By the way, it’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else.
34 posted on 10/30/2007 6:19:47 PM PDT by AZLiberty (President Fred -- I like the sound of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
Anyone hear anything yet? I looked around, not a single thing...like to post it on my site if I do find out. But then, I have to know for sure that it is true.

Gary

WatchingHillary.com


35 posted on 10/30/2007 6:20:07 PM PDT by GaryLee1990 (www.WatchingHillary.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

He already said it wasn’t about Edwards.


36 posted on 10/30/2007 6:20:14 PM PDT by wimpycat (Hyperbole is the opiate of the activist wacko.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kalee

My thoughts exactly.


37 posted on 10/30/2007 6:21:43 PM PDT by ghostrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Obama seems a reasonable guess.

Might as well have some race questions mixed in with the sex and politics "dillemma".

38 posted on 10/30/2007 6:22:27 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

You mean our media doesn’t impartially deliver the news to the people, but is of such a united mind that it will withhold or censor news according to its agenda?

Nah, now why would I think that?


39 posted on 10/30/2007 6:22:34 PM PDT by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat

You reading my mind? Beat me by seconds!


40 posted on 10/30/2007 6:23:04 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Bill Clinton had a baby with a black woman?


41 posted on 10/30/2007 6:23:20 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
I doubt it. Obama is sinking fast under his own power. There is no need for any help from others. Remember that the author said that this could sink the campaign of one of the candidates.

I'd guess either Rudy or Hillary would be the most logical possibilities here.
42 posted on 10/30/2007 6:23:39 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

“involving a leading Presidential candidate. “

Rudy or Clinton.


43 posted on 10/30/2007 6:23:40 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

I think you may have it. Just cheating isn’t enough.
It’s gotta be homosexual cheating.


44 posted on 10/30/2007 6:24:00 PM PDT by jimboster (fROM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Ron Paul’s alien abduction was sexual?


45 posted on 10/30/2007 6:24:50 PM PDT by Babsig (www.genesysitsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
this rumor the LA Times is supposedly sitting on is one I never heard in this specific form before

Interesting little clue, there.

46 posted on 10/30/2007 6:25:28 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
"I'm betting it's Obama"

That would seem to be the best bet - the article specifically says it's not the Edwards rumor (unless there's ANOTHER Edwards story and the author is just throwing people off the scent), and the chances are slim that the MSM would bother to publish if it's a 'lesser' candidate than Hillary-Obama-Edwards. Of course it goes without saying that it's not a Republican, else the LA Times would not be agonizing over any such dilemma. Without any real info to go on, I'd bet on Obama too, for why else would the LA Times agonize about it? Maybe they'd also agonize over a new Clinton scandal, but probably not as much.
47 posted on 10/30/2007 6:26:41 PM PDT by Enchante (Democrat terror-fighting motto: "BLEAT - CHEAT - RETREAT - DEFEAT")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woofie
No...Bill Clinton had a baby with an alien. Not the illegal ones neither.

Gary

WatchingHillary.com


48 posted on 10/30/2007 6:26:48 PM PDT by GaryLee1990 (www.WatchingHillary.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: woofie
Bill Clinton had a baby with a black woman?

He's not running.

Give it up.

49 posted on 10/30/2007 6:26:54 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Trails of trouble, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TornadoAlley3

Well we know two things about Rudy that are facts:
1. his former roomate was gay
2. he has dressed in drag

Think about it.


50 posted on 10/30/2007 6:26:59 PM PDT by Babsig (www.genesysitsolutions.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-426 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson