| | I don't really get this whole media sleaze thing.
The recent New York Times piece on McCain was pretty ridiculous. (Hint: don't blame the readers for your screwup!) Show me a fact that even establishes any sort of wrongdoing or unethical behaviour. There wasn't even evidence of any affair beyond hearsay. It is interesting how any sort of 'liberal progressive' values (i.e. what two private consenting adults do in in their private life is their business) go out the window when it comes to exposing those adverse to them. The Times spun the story as one of hypocrisy. They expect that kind of behaviour from a Kennedy, but, gasp, not a Republican!
But... since hypocrisy is the order of the day, you have to wonder why the media has not reported this little item. In short, it involves Obama, a male chauffeur, some crack, and other impropriety. The key part of the item is that it is totally "alleged." That is, there is no real proof that it happened other than one person's eyewitness account - but still more direct evidence than the entire Times story has. So, why is the Times not publishing that saucy piece as "news"? After all, the chauffeur just launched a lawsuit claiming Obama's team has been strongarming him.
I'll tell you why the Times isn't publishing: it's not news, damnit. Get some evidence to back up the story. And even then, so what? He had some crack and did ...other things.
Bill Clinton ran the country with his trousers around his ankles for goodness sakes.
When are people going to realize that this crap doesn't matter.
Newspapers used to publish long speeches of the candidates. Now, reporters are stupid lazy and report only spin and innuendo.
Perhaps it is no wonder I always felt somewhat foreign during those Newspaper Conferences.
|
| | Posted 2/24/2008 12:48 AM - 29 Views - 0 eProps - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
