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 previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 421-426 next last
To: jimboster

Am I the only one who thinks it could be ... Rudy?

Just a pure guess, but that guy has enough baggage to fill a sinkhole.


61 posted on 10/30/2007 6:28:44 PM PDT by Oliver Optic (Never blame on strategery that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Snickersnee
I say Edwards — and that means they were scooped by the Enquirer. The article says it is NOT.
62 posted on 10/30/2007 6:29:10 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
...the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it

IOW, depending on whether the candidate is a Republican/Democrat when can it do the Most/Least damage.
63 posted on 10/30/2007 6:29:23 PM PDT by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: (n) The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
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.

What hints have we seen?

Hillary's coverage hasn't been quite as fawning, but I don't know if that's a hint.

64 posted on 10/30/2007 6:29:47 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

Since he ruled out Edwards- it has to be Obama, Hillary, Mitt, Fred or Rudy.

Interesting- sooner or later it’s going to get out.


65 posted on 10/30/2007 6:30:11 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Tom

“A” should return the overpayment to the client. Or is this a trick question?


66 posted on 10/30/2007 6:30:20 PM PDT by wimpycat (Hyperbole is the opiate of the activist wacko.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: kalee

I agree Kalee. If its a repub they are going to sit on it, wait for the worst moment for that candidate to release it, and then fall back on the ol’ “ethics” line as their reasoning for sitting on it. They really do think they are smarter than most people. To them, Freepers and Rush fans are just dumb hicks with shotguns and bibles.


67 posted on 10/30/2007 6:30:24 PM PDT by ChinaThreat (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6

There is only one answer to this. First premise, modern journalism knows no standards or ethics. What fits the desired template gets reported, whether true or not. What goes against the desired template gets spiked, regardless.

For this reason, we know they aren’t talking about a republican. Therefore, my guess is Hillary or Obama, whom the press wants protected.

Simple.


68 posted on 10/30/2007 6:30:52 PM PDT by prov1813man (While the one you despise and ridicule works to protect you, those you embrace work to destroy you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
the point I wanted to make is that when you read elite DC political reporters writing about the campaign it may well be that they're writing from a perspective affected by something they're not telling you about.

Who are the "elite" DC reporters?

69 posted on 10/30/2007 6:31:24 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

Bingo. It can’t possibly be a republican or it would already be on the front page everywhere.


70 posted on 10/30/2007 6:31:36 PM PDT by lawgirl (She comes on like thunder and she's more right than rain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babsig
That is true. Could it be Rudy? A gay relationship? Hope not.

Gary

WatchingHillary.com


71 posted on 10/30/2007 6:31:47 PM PDT by GaryLee1990 (www.WatchingHillary.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
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.

Here's the clue in this piece.

I can't figure it out, but the journalist given us a clue...so who is being reported about with a "hint" of something impending?

72 posted on 10/30/2007 6:32:04 PM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

OK, its actually Mike Gravel having senior sex with Chris Dodd! Joe Biden joins in every third thursday for “Salad” night!


73 posted on 10/30/2007 6:32:46 PM PDT by Holicheese (1-21-09 Hillary starts to destroy America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Ron Paul is involved with this woman:


74 posted on 10/30/2007 6:32:51 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

That's good for a 20 point bump in the polls if you're a dim.

75 posted on 10/30/2007 6:32:55 PM PDT by SampleMan (Islamic tolerance is practiced by killing you last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne
this rumor ... is one I never heard in this specific form before

Interesting turn of phrase, indeed. Makes me think this involves Hillary, who's been dogged by rumors for years, but nothing specific.

76 posted on 10/30/2007 6:33:53 PM PDT by JennysCool (Don't taze me, Bro!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: woofie
The term was "leading" Presidential candidate.

I don't think Bill qualifies.

77 posted on 10/30/2007 6:34:00 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 57 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

It can’t be Obama. Joe Biden has vouched that Obama is , “..articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. “


78 posted on 10/30/2007 6:35:21 PM PDT by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

If the MSM’s debating it - it’s dem — they protect their own... Or it’s a Republican they don’t want to “fall” yet... bias makes ‘em soooooooo predictable.


79 posted on 10/30/2007 6:35:28 PM PDT by GOPJ (When it makes you mad -- "ping & grrrr" -- Freeper:pandoraou812)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dawn53
I thought Matt Drudge would be on top of it...but he's wrapped up with the Dem debate.

Gary

WatchingHillary.com


80 posted on 10/30/2007 6:35:30 PM PDT by GaryLee1990 (www.WatchingHillary.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 421-426 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