The absurd statement of the day comes from Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. In a lengthy, lengthy article rationalizing the mainstream media's refusal to publish a word about the well known affair between Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, his former campaign aide, Kurtz said,
"I don't think the party favoritism charge holds up."
What a scream. He said this in response to Bill O'Reilly, who had said,
"I do know that if it were Mitt Romney instead of John Edwards, this would be on the front page of the New York Times."
Not so, said Kurtz, pointing out that the Times did report that former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Sheriff of Wall Street and white collar crime fighter extraordinaire, turned out to be Client 9 of the Emporers Club prostitution ring. What Kurtz didn't mention was that the Times had little choice, since the former governor was not former at the time, and facts of his racy romance appeared in a detailed 47-page affidavit from an FBI agent who was investigating the ring.
So you see in Kurtz view, the Times' factual publication of a Democratic governor's dishonest and reprehensible behavior represents balanced reporting. But Kurtz forgot to mention how the Times balanced off the Spitzer story with a front page rumor of an affair that Republican presidential candidate John McCain never actually had. In Times breathless reporting,
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
As is so often the case, the rumor of Republican scandal rates front page coverage while every effort is made to ignore the actual scandal involving a Democrat. It's only when credibility is at stake that the liberal mainstream press will the report a Democratic scandal. Mickey Kaus puts the Edwards story in perspective, since Howard Kurtz doesn't seem to be able to.
Michael Kinsley emails about the Edwards/Hunter story:
AS for your laundry list of reasons to cover it, I think there's one more much simpler: the MSM told a story about Edwards—they told it often and loud—it was probably one of the best-known and totally accepted stories of the 2008 campaign: John loyally standing by his loyal wife as she deals with cancer. If the story isn't true, they should run a correction.
Well there's an oopsie for you. Kurtz will never admit it, but I'm certain he believes it's an aberration. Democrats really aren't like that. Sure Democratic politicians have their faults but at heart they are really good people. There is that higher truth, you know. The one that we can't be trusted to see so the press has to show us. And with so much at stake, an election coming and all, the mainstream press can't risk distorting the real truth about Democratic party luminaries by publishing things like -- what they do.
Comments