Author Topic: LA Times mulling over megaton presidential candidate sex scandal. PLACE BETS (Read 1349 times)

Phoenix Dark · « **on:** October 31, 2007, 05:57:07 PM »

Quote

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, it’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.

http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php

The LA Times had no qualms running the "Gropanator" story during the governor race, and we know these "elitists" are liberal. Which leads me to believe this story has everything to do with a democrat - most likely Obama. If they run a train on Obama chances are race will come up, and the paper will look bad. I would imagine this will leak to someone like Drudge eventually, and he'll have no problem doing the dirty work.

Gay Boy · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2007, 05:58:15 PM »

Obama or Romney.

Rudy, meh who cares? He is always cheating.

Himu · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2007, 05:59:50 PM »

Obama with a white woman obviously

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2007, 06:00:39 PM »

seems pretty obviously Obama to me

Gay Boy · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2007, 06:01:46 PM »

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2007, 06:02:21 PM »

Thompson probably can't get it up. I vote for Edwards being gang fucked by a group of illegals while bending over the fence.

Himu · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2007, 06:02:26 PM »

"look at these perky white tits! they're mine"

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2007, 06:16:35 PM »

omg @ the blonde on the left

lemme put my ooga boo face on

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #8 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:07:14 PM »

WTF there's no "Ron Paul fucking the Constitution" option. NO SALE.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #9 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:10:14 PM »

Quote from: Raoul Duke on October 31, 2007, 08:07:14 PM

WTF there's no "Ron Paul fucking the Constitution" option. NO SALE.

That's Rudy's job

Btw, Ron wouldnt be fucking it. HE would gently make love with it then deliver it's baby.

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #10 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:14:22 PM »

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on October 31, 2007, 08:10:14 PM

Quote from: Raoul Duke on October 31, 2007, 08:07:14 PM
WTF there's no "Ron Paul fucking the Constitution" option. NO SALE.

That's Rudy's job

Btw, Ron wouldnt be fucking it. HE would gently make love with it then deliver it's baby.

Ron Paul is producing a lot of babies and they seem to be able to post and an incredible rate.

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #11 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:15:15 PM »

Quote from: Malek: King of Kings on October 31, 2007, 08:14:22 PM

Quote from: FlameOfCallandor on October 31, 2007, 08:10:14 PM
Quote from: Raoul Duke on October 31, 2007, 08:07:14 PM
WTF there's no "Ron Paul fucking the Constitution" option. NO SALE.

That's Rudy's job

Btw, Ron wouldnt be fucking it. HE would gently make love with it then deliver it's baby.

Ron Paul is producing a lot of babies and they seem to be able to post and an incredible rate.

Ichirou · « **Reply #12 on:** October 31, 2007, 08:41:43 PM »

Obviously a Democrat, given this is coming from Pajamas Media. I agree it's most likely Obama. I'm guessing the reason they don't even give any hints as to who it is is because they don't want to be sued later on if it turns out not to be true.

Gay Boy · « **Reply #13 on:** October 31, 2007, 09:53:03 PM »

Quote from: Ichirou on October 31, 2007, 08:41:43 PM

Obviously a Democrat, given this is coming from Pajamas Media. I agree it's most likely Obama. I'm guessing the reason they don't even give any hints as to who it is is because they don't want to be sued later on if it turns out not to be true.

Gotta be Obama. LA Times are pretty liberal, if it was a republican they wouldn't sit on it. I mean it is gotta be a top tier and in the dem field:

Hillary - WAAAAY too self-controlled, her life is politcs she would forsake sex for the rest of her life if she had to
Edwards - article says its not him
Obama - who else would it be?

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #14 on:** October 31, 2007, 11:23:33 PM »

I hope that Fred Thompson's hot wife was somehow involved, just for the scandel factor/possible future Playboy spread.

oh please
oh please
oh please
oh please.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #15 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:28:15 AM »

gotta be a republican. if it was a democrat, they wouldn't have sat on it. even money says RUDY; my heart hopes for THOMPSON; my lulz gland commands it be RON PAUL.

Mandark · « **Reply #16 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:35:51 AM »

Fred Thompson, and we'll all be disappointed.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #17 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:38:48 AM »

i still think fred's the biggest threat to the dems. americans love their fatherly celebrities and they love their reagan-esque shallow conservative grandstanding.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #18 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:39:17 AM »

thompson let his daughter chew on his wife's diaphragm.

Mandark · « **Reply #19 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:44:42 AM »

I dunno. Thompson doesn't have that quality where he can say dumb things, and make people believe it's simple, folksy common sense.

Even to GOP crowds, he seems to come off as lazy or dumb. Maybe he just doesn't have (or doesn't project) the same level of conviction that Reagan or Dubya have. They really seemed to believe whatever they were spouting. Thompson sounds like he learned his talking points phonetically.

Mandark · « **Reply #20 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:45:31 AM »

Speaking of the Gipper, here's a really fun hatchet job on the published version of his diaries.

Fresh Prince · « **Reply #21 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:53:33 AM »

Seems like Obama with a lot to lose personally, young children etc.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #22 on:** November 01, 2007, 10:34:15 AM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on November 01, 2007, 02:28:15 AM

gotta be a republican. if it was a democrat, they wouldn't have sat on it. even money says RUDY; my heart hopes for THOMPSON; my lulz gland commands it be RON PAUL.

What's your reasoning behind this good sir? I doubt the LA Times would sit on outing a republican, unless of course they're waiting for 08

Ichirou · « **Reply #23 on:** November 01, 2007, 10:37:47 AM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on November 01, 2007, 02:28:15 AM

gotta be a republican. if it was a democrat, they wouldn't have sat on it. even money says RUDY; my heart hopes for THOMPSON; my lulz gland commands it be RON PAUL.

Pajamas Media? If it was a republican, they wouldn't even have reported it. Thus, it's gotta be a democrat.

ferrarimanf355 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 01, 2007, 11:54:04 AM »

Thompson at a lemon party.

tiesto · « **Reply #25 on:** November 01, 2007, 12:28:18 PM »

Quote from: Gay Boy on October 31, 2007, 06:01:46 PM

(Image removed from quote.)

I'd hit the one on the right 5 ways till Sunday...

Mandark · « **Reply #26 on:** November 01, 2007, 02:08:42 PM »

Matt Welch says he hasn't heard anything about it.

Of course he's a dirty, dirty libertarian so I don't know what to think.

News:

Poll

Who is the culprit?

Author Topic: LA Times mulling over megaton presidential candidate sex scandal. PLACE BETS (Read 1349 times)