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.
I was hearing rumblings of Edwards a few weeks ago actually.
Exactly. Nothing like coming off as a guy who is cheating on his terminally ill wife.
I think it is Obama regarding a certain restroom in the Mineapolis airport.
If it’s a Republican who gets the GOP nomination, it will run in October, the month before the election. If it’s a democrap who gets the nomination, the story will be forgotten........
So, where are the pictures?
Oh yes they would because timing of its release is everything......
By jove I think you’ve got it!
I think your post of possible scenarios may well be the whole point of the story.
I say it is a Dem and they float it out this way first so that we play out these speculations and let the rumors run wild.
That way, every candidate is affected in the speculation stage, and the “real” story will lose most of it’s punch by the time it is finally sprung.
Therefore- it involves a Rat. They are trying to mitigate the damage up front. And there is only one candidate that the media would do this ground work for.
Oh yes they would because timing of its release is everything......
You have that right on! Just remember it was the LA Slimes that released the Arnold groping and sex stories just weeks before the election in CA to derail him.
JOHN EDWARDS
and don’t forget that Florida politician who had an affair with the 17 year old page. The media had the story for over 3 months but didn’t release it until a week before the election.........
Unless it's a GOP frontrunner, in which case they might wait until after the nomination (or October 2008).
Why would you say that?
I expected a bunch by now...guess I missed out. It was a pretty subtle hint however.
Regards,
My guess is that it's about Edwards and the woman who works on his campaign. They probably are reluctant to break the story because Edwards wife is reportedly dying of breast cancer, and he's already denied it.
Agree. Since he claims it's a "leading presidential candidate", it has to be one of them. If it's any one of those GOP candidates, I don't see the DC media sitting on it for any reason. It would harm the entire GOP field to embroil a GOP candidate in a sex scandal, and they'd do it asap. I could see them sitting on an Obama story, because it wouldn't be PC, dontchaknow. If it's Her Heinous, we'll never hear about it. Ever.
Saudi? Are you sure? Is this the rumored LA Times freak-out babe?
I know for a fact its Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy and Hillary. They made a triple decker sandwich....OK, easy stomach...
Here’s my take. If it’s a Republican, and that Republican knows it may be about him, he ought to come clean now and diffuse the whole situation now. If he waits and gets the nomination and then it comes out, he could be damaged politically and hand the White House to the Dems. He needs to think about it.
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.