What Media Bias? Part 120
August 9th, 2008 at 11:38am Mark Noonan
The fact that the rumors of Edwards’ infidelity have been around for a long time and the MSM only started covering it when Edwards confessed.
If this has been a GOPer, it would have been ’round the clock coverage until the miscreant was forced to admit it…
UPDATE: Advice Goddess points out that the LA Times, Tribune of The People, Defender of All That is Good and Scourge of The Powerful put an intern on the case.
The L.A. Times And Rielle Hunter: Way Too Little, Way Too Late
Finally, finally, after suffering nationwide media blog ridicule, the L.A. Times squeeezes out a story about how they didn’t tell the story, plus a “timeline,” bylined Kate Linthicum, of l’affaire Edwards and Hunter…
…I hadn’t seen the byline Kate Linthicum before, so I looked her up. Yes, while they’re throwing all the experienced reporters out of the place, we’ve now got the apparently undersupervised intern (Barnard Class of 2008) writing the paper…
Entry Filed under: Corruption, Democrats, Media
29 Comments
1. New Conservative | August 9th, 2008 at 11:51 am
lol. Well what do you expect from a liberal rag like the LA Times.
http://www.thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
2. Casper | August 9th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
There have also been rumors for years about Bush drinking for some time (which I don’t believe).
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426
If the MSM had the bias you state, wouldn’t there be round the clock coverage?
3. 42 | August 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“If this had been a GOPer, it would have been ’round the clock coverage until the miscreant was forced to admit it…”
I’m just impressed you were able to type that while throwing your little tantrum, grow up Noonan and stop blaming everyone and everthing around you ’cause life ain’t fair
really? your ticked off that the MSM didn’t go after a National Enquirer story…come on, grow a pair already and stop whining…if nothing else you should be grateful that the rumor wasn’t covered since now of course Grampa munster’s own infidalties are sure to come to light
4. french student | August 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Repeat after me :
the RNC will stop getting flak from infidelity stories when they stop to claim that they are the party of ethics, fidelity, abstinence until marriage and generally that they have a monopoly on morals.
The stories about republicain infidelities, or about every anti-gay politician that gets caught with a male prostitute, is not about the sex per se. It is about the hypocrisy of a politician, whose only professional asset is the worth of his word.
5. gotsbrains? | August 9th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Noonan -
“If this has been a GOPer, it would have been ’round the clock coverage until the miscreant was forced to admit it…”
How do you figure? The media are all over John Edwards’ affair, even though he isn’t running for office. Meanwhile, John McCain, who is running for president, is not even asked about his old affairs.
Although McCain was admittedly smeared in the NYTimes over a flimsy recent allegation that appears to not have had any evidence to back it up, he is never asked about affairs he has admitted to back when he was married to his first wife.
While McCain was a P.O.W. in Vietnam, his first wife, model Carol Shepp, was seriously injured in a horrific traffic accident in which she was thrown through the windshield. She didn’t mention this in her letters to him in Vietnam to keep his morale up. When he got back and saw her 4 inches shorter, seriously overweight, and on crutches, he began having affairs. One piece of indisputable evidence is the fact that he obtained a license to marry wealthy beer heiress Cindy Hensley on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to Carol.
Personally, I think whatever Bill Clinton, John Edwards, or John McCain did in privacy is between them, their wives, and their God. But I wonder why the media are getting into a frenzy over Edwards, who isn’t a candidate for office and most likely never will be again, while they ignore the past affairs of McCain, who is a candidate for President. How can you say GOPers are unfairly taken to task more than Dems if McCain’s past affairs are ignored by the media?
And, if you personally think Edwards committed a terrible thing by cheating on his wife, why do you not apply that standard to Mr McCain? Is it that you forgive McCain’s cheating because he has admitted it, and because it happened 30 years ago? Perhaps you could explain why Edwards’ misdeeds are inexcusable, but McCain’s are not.
6. Mark Noonan | August 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Gotbrains,
The key is “old affairs”, ya know? Edwards was seeking the highest office in the land and there was, actually, plenty of evidence for the MSM to go after the story, had it been a GOPer. Remember, the ancient story of Bush’s DUI was latched on right away, while with “Rathergate” even stories with absolutely zero to base them on are given prime time.
The best example of media bias:
There is just zero chance that a GOPer would get the pass Frank got on this - because Frank is gay and a Democrat, its all ok…he apologised, you see? And so there’s nothing more to report about it.
Its from a book you should read.
7. yekepyt | August 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
The supposition that our corporate media would have been “all over” any “rumors” about Republicans is hilarious.
Why isn’t the corporate media “all over” the “rumors” of McCain’s affairs? What about the “rumors” as to why our aged flyboy ditched his first wife? Or take Bush’s “rumored” split with Laura: is there truth to the “rumor” that Laura is living at the Mayflower Hotel instead of the White House? Geez, with so many rumors, you’d think the corporate media would be tripping “all over” themselves to cover them in depth!
How can you write this stuff with a straight face?
8. Mark Noonan | August 9th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
yek,
The pictures of Edwards and Hunter together have been around for a while - for weeks, from what I understand…and the MSM just wouldn’t touch it until Edwards admitted it.
If you wish to ignore the truth, that is your business…but there’s just no chance in heck that if the Enquirer had a picture of, say, Romney and some bimbo at a hotel that they’d wait for Romney to make up his mind to confess…
9. gotsbrains? | August 9th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Noonan -
“The key is “old affairs”, ya know?”
In other words, affairs are OK if they happened long ago? OK, fine. But McCain didn’t get any press scrutiny about the affairs back when he was running for national office in 1982, when those affairs were very recent.
John McCain starting dating Hensley in 1979 after they were introduced at a reception in Hawaii, while still married to Carol McCain. Then he began his ultimately successful run for congress in 1981. The timelines are in this much later article from the LATimes:
(apparently McCain’s wife Carol was a close personal friend of the Reagans, and so the Reagan were quite upset at John)
So, McCain starts his affair with Hensley in 1979, divorces his wife in 1980, and then launches his run for congress in 1981. So back when McCain first ran for national office, he’d had a recent affair. Where was the press scrutiny? Why were there no reporters assigned to investigate the abundant rumors of his affair way back then?
10. Mark Noonan | August 9th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
got,
And McCain long ago admitted to all that, has freely admitted that it was his own arrogance and self-centeredness which led to the destruction of his marriage and by all accounts McCain and his first wife are on good terms these days. Its all very old news and long ago resolved. I know that your instructors are telling you that you have to keep hammering this talking point into the ground, but don’t you think it a little, well, foolish to be using a nearly 30 year old event to counter an event from 2006?
11. Thrower | August 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
The real difference in the two cases to this point is that Edwards stayed with his wife. Both he and McCain committed contemptible acts given the health status of their wives.
You might give a pass to McCain given the shocking nature of his POW experience, but the “long ago” excuse is beyond weak. There is no statute of limitations on poor character, and if this was Obama, you would be all over it. You lose your credibility when you view life through such a partisan lens. That’s why I generally read your writings for entertainment rather than for education. That’s too bad because at times you are spot on with your analysis but this isn’t one of them.
12. Mark Noonan | August 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Thrower,
You mean that if Obama had been married, had an affair, got divorced and then remarried, I would be “all over it”? For that I can absolutely assure you, the answer would be “no”.
While infidelity can be a strong indicator of the character flaws a person has, such a thing is not dispositive - in other words, the act of infidelity, in and of itself, does not mean the person is reprobate. Lots of people do dumb things - and there, thank God, a statute of limitations on poor character, at least as far as we Christians are concerned.
You see, what is at issue here is not Edwards’ sin - we all sin. Nor is it about whether Edwards is truly sorry for what he has done - that is ultimately between Edwards and God. Its not even about the fact that Edwards bald-faced lied about the affair - that is another sin Edwards will have to reconcile with God about. The issue here is why the MSM, when clear evidence emerged of the affair, refused to broadcast it until Edwards fessed up?
For you on your side to go dredging up McCain’s old sin is, of itself, a sin - you are being unforgiving and not loving McCain as you love yourself (and unless you are pleased with people bringing up your decades-old errors, you certainly - in your self love - would prefer your old sins be forgotten and left in the past). And on top of that you’re clearly doing it in the service of a partisan, political goal - and in this you’re being a bad citizen, because you should be gravely concerned that something like this only emerged now, rather than months ago, which good investigative journalism would have done (and the MSM defending itself by saying that Edwards and Co denied it vigorously is the most amazing bit of sophistry…of course Edwards and his people would deny it…the job of a journalist is to check out the denials, not accept them at face value).
13. New Conservative | August 9th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Being a hypocrit just means you have values. Anyone who has values can be seen has a hypocrit at some point because no one is perfect.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
14. gotsbrains? | August 9th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Noonan -
“…but don’t you think it a little, well, foolish to be using a nearly 30 year old event to counter an event from 2006?”
Yes, McCain’s affair is old news… now. But you conveniently ignored what I was saying - namely, that McCain’s affair was not old news back when he was running for national office in 1982.
As you state, Edwards had his affair in 2006, and you are upset that the media didn’t seem to doggedly dig for that tidbit when he was still a candidate in 2008. And you are positing that only democrats get this mild treatment, while if a Republican had had an affair a couple years earlier, it would have been investigated to the hilt by the media. Is that a fair summary of your argument?
Well, if that’s the case, then why didn’t the media investigate the hell out of John McCain’s 1979 affair when he was running for national office beginning just 2 years later in 1981? He won his election to congress in 1982 - don’t you think the opponent he defeated in that election deserved to have the media investigate McCain’s affair? After all, it was more than a little fishy that McCain quickly married Hensley just a few weeks after his divorce was granted. You’d think that would have set off all kinds of red flags - but no, no exposes were forthcoming.
So no, I’m not just talking about a 30 year old affair. I’m asking you why McCain was not dogged by the media when he ran for congress in 1982 when there was ample reason to suspect that he’d had an affair just 2 years before?
——-
(Ed Note: Off topic part of comment deleted)
15. New Conservative | August 9th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
gotbrains? I wish we still had respect for our public servants and to some degree stayed out of their public lives. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with letting people know that Edwards had an affair or that he amy have fathered a love child. (we’ll now if that’s true soon enough) However the piling on that I’ve been seeing is a bit ridiculous. I’m with Powerline on this one. The man as lost his career and most of his dignity. Let’s leave it there.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
16. New Conservative | August 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Public= private in the second sentence.
17. New Conservative | August 9th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
amy=may. I wish there was an edit button so you could fix the post.
18. gotsbrains? | August 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
New Conservative -
I actually agree with you.
But for Noonan to imply that Edwards got favorable treatment because the media didn’t follow up on affair rumors is ridiculous. McCain too escaped press scrutiny for his then recent affair back when he ran for congress in 82.
It was not until long after McCain had become a Senator that the affair came to light in the press, and McCain implicitly admitted to it. Is there really any difference between McCain having an affair in ‘79 and escaping scrutiny during his ‘82 campaign… and Edwards having an affair in 2006 and escaping scrutiny during his 2008 campaign?
At least Edwards didn’t win his election - McCain, however, got to have his cake and eat it too.
19. CanadianObserver | August 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
18. gotsbrains? | August 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
——————————
You present a logical argument which Mark has no way to debate, gotsbrains, so he will continue to dodge, weave and circle the issue until you give up.
You will never get him to admit that you have a valid point.
20. gotsbrains? | August 9th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I suspect you are right, CO.
Still, we can always try. Maybe Mark will shock us one day by admitting he’s been licked in an argument. However, we may have to wait until Barack Obama is well into his second term before that happens…
21. Mark Noonan | August 10th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Got,
You’re grasping at straws - and rather stupid straws, at that. McCain’s divorce was public knowledge more than two years before he was elected to the House.
Its really rather pathetic the lengths to which you mindless robots of the left will go…stop being such a parrot and start thinking.
22. 42 | August 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
“Its really rather pathetic the lengths to which you mindless robots of the left will go…stop being such a parrot and start thinking.”
that’s Noonan speak for “I’m in over my head in this argument, I’d better resort to name calling”
“McCain’s divorce was…”
Who cares?….the point isn’t the divorce, it’s the affair
23. Mark Noonan | August 10th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
42,
Only in your rather strange world - the subject isn’t cheating or a divorce at all, but the fact that the MSM knew about this weeks ago and wouldn’t touch it until Edwards admitted it. If the Enquirer had pics of a GOPer out with his mistress the MSM would have started running it and demanding answers….Edwards got a pass because the MSM is on the Democrats’ side.
24. 42 | August 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“Only in your rather strange world”
-still w/ personal attacks? you’re an inspiration for the kiddies Noonan
when has the MSM ever picked up and ran w/ an Enquirer story, GOPers, real Americans or otherwise…Edwards got a pass??? The whole point of this thread proves you wrong, it’s McCain who’s gotten the pass from the ultra liberal, Bush hating, blame American first, MSM, you should be on your knees thanking MSNBC for not talking about the disgusting actions of womanizer like McCain…instead you fall back to your predictable position of throwing a tantrum over the actions of the MSM….for not covering an Enquirer story no less…and NO, just because McCain did it years ago does not make it irrelevant, and by simply trying to go down that road only shows how desperate you are to save some face.
not covering an Enquirer story is media bias?…give me a break
25. FmrMarine | August 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Mark,
What about BO husseins, GAY liaison?
or his cocaine use???
crickets chirping….ya de ya McKains divorce blah blah !!!
26. FmrMarine | August 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
“Larry Sinclair filed suit in Minnesota District Court on Monday against Barack Obama, along with Obama’s campaign strategist David Axelrod and others, regarding issues stemming from Sinclair’s allegations that he used cocaine and performed a sexual act with Obama in 1999.”
HELLLLLOOOOO MSM ??????
where are YOU????
oh yeah…..McKain divorced and re married!
GOT IT!
27. 42 | August 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
dishonorably discharged, it’s McCain’s affair, not the divorce which is being discussed…try to keep up
28. Faceplant | August 17th, 2008 at 3:21 am
“And McCain long ago admitted to all that, has freely admitted that it was his own arrogance and self-centeredness which led to the destruction of his marriage…”
Uhhh….
“I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow,” McCain wrote. “I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.”
An examination of court documents tells a different story. McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had “cohabited” until Jan. 7 of that year — or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.
Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.”
What an honest straight shooter! I’m sure you will come up with a way to defend this kind of behavior, however, because it’s pretty obvious that you actually have no real principles Marky. Nice try though.
29. Faceplant | August 17th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Hmmm, Frmr Marine… Maybe the MSM is located in the same place Larry Sinclairs flunked lie detector tests are? Or maybe they are located in his previous arrest warrants for fraud?
You people believe anything you want to hear don’t you?