Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, August 01, 2008
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
Who Wants To Know?
by Kathleen Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
What would you rather watch?

The tabloid story that everybody's talking about -- but almost no one is writing about -- has created an interesting debate on the Internet about the dueling roles of old/new media and what constitutes legitimate news.

The item prompting this debate concerns allegations of a former presidential candidate's alleged affair, an alleged "love child" and a recent secret rendezvous in a Hollywood hotel.

Scandalous, no?

Well, yes and no. The "news" is being breathlessly discussed that way on the internet, but not much in the mainstream media. When does a story in the blogosphere become hot enough to make the jump to the MSM?

The short answer is: When there are facts to report. Until then, a rumor is a rumor is a rumor.

And tabloids, though sometimes right, are generally considered prurient entertainment, not reliable journalism. There is a difference in standards, even if mainstream journalism sometimes falls short of perfection.

The blogosphere is another creature altogether -- a mixture of the highest and lowest levels of discourse, a village square where the planet's brightest lights and dimmest creatures commingle in a random loop of spontaneous ignition. Content, often begun as a conversation among neighbors, is freewheeling and unrated. Journagossip.

As we've witnessed several times in recent years, what happens in the blogosphere can eventually reach a tipping point and jump the invisible barrier to the MSM. Mickey Kaus, a respected journalist and blogger, has created a theory of "undernews" around the phenomenon -- news that simmers in the blogosphere until someone high on the mainstream food chain decides to take a bite of the apple.

The cycle looks something like this: First, the "news" is essentially gossip, based loosely on unnamed sources. Then the news is the story of the gossip. (Ah, the dull thrill of irony.) Then the story is the nonreporting of the story. And, voila, the "news" is News! What began in the tabloid world as gossip has gained legitimacy by virtue of the media covering itself.

As here.

Sort of.

I'm trying to write this column without repeating the actual allegations because they're unproved, but also because I don't care. Of greater concern than the tragedy of human frailty, which is not news, is the driving force behind the story -- schadenfreude -- the pleasure in others' misery.

Whether this particular story gets reported more broadly depends on multiple factors too numerous to list here, but my guess after 30 years in newspapers is that most editors simply don't want to go there. We've traveled this road too many times, seen too much roadkill, and the scenery only gets worse.

What we recognize, inevitably, is that we've all become gossips, prying into other people's private lives, sifting through their garbage, peeking in their windows, wallowing in their pain. Fifteen minutes of fame have morphed into 15 minutes of infamy. The sensation of the consumer is the same we feel at a friend's funeral. Someday it will be ours.

When I was a little girl, my best friend was Mrs. Brown, a 65-year-old widow who lived on the corner across the street. Several times a week, I joined Mrs. Brown for lunch. She always ate the same thing: a hamburger patty, a scoop of cottage cheese, two slices of tomato with pepper, and a cup of hot tea with lemon.

One day, Mrs. Brown veered from course and also ate a slice of pecan pie. No sooner had she taken her last bite than her telephone rang. It was Mrs. MacQueen, another widow who lived on the opposite corner: "I saw you eat that piece of pie," she said.

Mrs. Brown and I were both horrified, even though I knew that Mrs. Brown also watched Mrs. MacQueen's every move from her own dining room window. They gossiped incessantly about one another. Heaven forbid, one should have had a night visitor.

Or that either had been a blogger.

In a matter of decades, we have become a nation of Mrs. Browns and Mrs. MacQueens -- nosy little old ladies who can't leave each other alone to eat a piece of pie, or even to fall from grace and suffer sorrow in the privacy of our own hearts. Ruinous humiliation is the coin of this wretched realm.

That's the real scandal, and there may be nothing we can do about it. In a free society where standards of civility and manners are voluntary, few are signing up.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Are you one of those Democrats ...
that told us character didn't matter? And now that same bunch is trying to tell us that experience doesn't matter. I sense a trend here: whatever their candidate is sorely lacking doesn't matter.

Who Wants to Know?
What's wrong with a little well-deserved schadenfreude? Especially when it is a nation figure expressing blatant hypocrisy? He used his cancer-suffering wife as a political prop to garner sympathy votes. How reprehensible can one get? Meantime, he was bumping uglies with a useless piece of human refuse/druggie-sex addict. Oh, its all documented, but the useless human refuse who inhabit the MSM won't say anything about it, because that useless piece of excrement is one of their own. I hope Rielle Hunter gives him the gift that keeps on giving, until the offending appendage rots off.

Allegations
About halfway through she says "I am trying to write this column without repeating the actual allegations because they're unproven but also because I don't care". If you really did not care there would be no column written on the subject. And if the allegations were untrue, Edwards would come out with some proof. Such as "Here is DNA proving the child is not mine" I was no where near that hotel on the night in question, I never hid in the bathroom instead of "The National Enquirer is a tabloid publication". What does that have to do with weather the allegations are true or false. When I see John Edwards file suit against the Enquirer, I might start to believe Edwards. Until then, he is as guilty as sin.

Names
In the initial paragraph Ms. Parker informs us that an unnamed "former Presidential candidate" has been accused to fathering a child out of wedlock. Yet no where in the column is this person's name mentioned. Other than Hillary Clinton, I guess it could be anyone. Is it Michael Dukakis? How about Ross Perot? I wonder who it could be? I suppose it makes Ms. Parker feel better to not write the words John Edwards, like no one who reads this column is going to know to whom she refers.

Pleasure in the misfortune of
John Edwards doesn't really make me a bad person, does it?

Not that I want anything really nasty to happen to him or his family. But he is such a sanctimonious, arrogant, pretentious demagogue, and a phony trial lawyer to boot, I can't help but be thrilled that the Millworker's Son might finally have to shut his mouth for awhile.

Here's hoping he stays off the public stage for good.

The ultimate oxymoron
is the phrase journalistic integrity and objectivity. Parker says that the difference between tabloids and the MSM is that the latter has standards. So does a hooker.

She doesn't care???
The man of "2 America's" is still running, at least was, for the VP slot, which is, as they say, a heartbeat away from the real thing...and this is a non-story abut this guy? His wife at home with cancer and this guy's out producing a step-sibling for her children? What other character flaws does Ms. Parker not care about?

When its about a Republican?
When does a tabloid story about a man whose every single waking moment is hypocricital, who is cheating on his dying wife with a trailer trash woman uncannily like those who live across from his gated and fenced compound into which not one of them were ever welcome, become a story in the MSM?

Short answer: When its about a Republican. Or even better, a Christian.

The replies are better than article
The replies hit the nail on the head. If this were a Republican, it would have been MSM all the way.

Not the Same
Sorry Ms Parker but your little analogy of Mrs Brown and Mrs MacQueen doesn't work with me because neither of these fine ladies has the power (so far as I know) to advance or accelerate the leftward drift of my beloved US of A. Should either of them acquire any appreciable fraction of that power you can expect to see me camped out in the trees near their houses, cameras and telephoto lens dangling, hoping to catch them in the smallest of compromising and exploitable positions.

What A Crock
MSM has no credibility whatsoever after the non war reporting, this presidential campaign, and now the Edwards coverup is icing on the cake. They would have reported this madly if it was a republican candidate, get real, just like they did the false McCain rumor Front page in the slimes.

The MSM gets it's cues from the blogosphere now taking the most talked about items they trial balloon and then they make the cut, that's how it works today.

Media Bias
I think Ms Parker gives the MSM too much credit. One of the major reasons blogs have become more influential is because the MSM has ceased to be an objective source of real news. The assumption that a story reaches the MSM when it is no longer just a rumor is totally false. CBS, for one, was more than content to not only run unsubstantiated facts they actually made them up. Many, for years have talked to their TV's because they knew they were not hearing the correct story.

True, the world of 'news' is now filled with all kinds of denizens and it takes much more thought to arrive at the truth, but at least it has a chance to get out there and the MSM story line is not the only one we have to use in making decisions.

Rumors happen behind the scenes. The blogs are out there for anyone with a computer to read and dispute if necessary.

oh my
Edwards considered by some in media as possible VP running mate for BHO....I am not here to throw stones at Edwards... but if true the accusation is considered an unfavorable character trait by many..part of the vetting process..reporting will be salacious or just factual.. vjf

AudiR10 is right, as usual
I think that Parker's got it precisely wrong. The trend she writes about (and bemoans with something less than real sincerity) is the tendency for people to salivate over any little bit of salacious gossip, no matter how much it lacks significance. Or, relatedly, the need some people have (real or perceived) in the media and otherwise, to want to bring some people down.

It's one thing for the media to report matters that aren't news, or aren't relevant.

It's another thing altogether for the media to REFUSE to publicize matters that ARE news and ARE relevant. That's not respect or restraint, that is a blatant attempt to manipulate the public by depriving it of information that would affect opinion (and election results).

When someone is running for office, posturing about themselves, and engaging in behavior that is a direct contradiction to the standards he/she espouses, that exposes them as a liar and a hypocrite, amongst other things. (And I am NOT saying that about youthful indiscretions that happened years or decades before the person ran for office.)

The allegations about Edwards were floating around for months before he was caught coming out of this person's hotel room at 3:00 in the morning! And then he dashed into a men's room to hide??? If it's all just a wild coincidence, then explain it and be done with it. But if - as we all suspect - there's more to it, then he must stand up and take his lumps. And I don't believe for one second that the MSM has finally found a conscience about doling those lumps out.

Finally, this comeuppance is just as appropriate for congressmen and senators writing love notes to pages, or soliciting stranger sex in a public bathroom.

We Don't Want To Know
It would be a wonderful world if things operated as you describe in your article. Truthfully most of us really don't want to know nor do we care what politicians are doing in their private lives. However, it is naive to think the MSM media is being prudent in its reporting regarding this matter. We all know if this had been a conservative republican politician or a Evangelical Christian minister the entire US of A would know about it and the media frenzy would be spinning our heads. I do respect the stance you are taking to stand on the moral high ground but I am afraid it remains wishful thinking.

Wayyyy too much credit.
Kathleen, you are too kind to the MSM. "but my guess after 30 years in newspapers is that most editors simply don't want to go there." WHAT?!?!? Tell that to Larry Craig. And to the Duke Lacrosse players. How about Mark Foley? There are countless examples of how "the newspapers" are more than willing to "go there", if it is a suitable Republican or white kid to crucify.

Self-induced
Mr. Edwards is, by his own doing, a public figure and, even more relevant, a former candidate for public office and a wishful hoper for the VP pick. Whatever happens to him is self-induced.

Did you catch it?
Ms. Parker specifically mentions our very own will in her column. What? You didn't see it? It's right there in the seventh paragraph, "... dimmest creature(s)". Who knew Ms. Parker was a fan?

Not one of Ms Parkers better ...
pieces. I'm a big fan of Ms. Parkers and usually enjoy her incite and deft reparte'. This one falls a bit short.

On a side note, the use of Brown and MacQueen fell a bit short. When my wife peers out the window to watch the neighbors do whatever the neighbors do, I merely say, "Get away from the window, Gladys." As in Gladys Cravitz, the nosy neighbor from Bewitched. It usually works.

In an ideal world
The ongoing amazing hypocrisy, bias and double standard of the MSM is the real story here. It's become a cliche, but that doesn't mean it isn't important.

I feel badly for Mrs. Edwards, and ideally this would be a private matter between her and Mr. Edwards. But the guy was running for President.

I guess I'm one of those old fashioned, non-edgy, out of touch types who still believes character does matter. The man is asking us to entrust him with more power than any other person on earth because he is honest and capable of handling the huge problems that face us? And at the same time he is cheating on his seriously ill wife? Who he had vowed in front of both their families and his closest friends never to forsake?

Sorry, to me that is something that is relevant in judging whether he is capable of being the President.

His day in the sun is probably over for good, and he'll be a trivia question in five years. But the MSM shields him from scrutiny under
the guise that it isn't newsworthy?

And a few months ago rumors and allegations about some lobbyist
talking to Sen. McCain was "hard news" worthy of a front page story in the NYT?

That stinks, pure and simple.

Oops, that was NOT ...
a freudian slip. Just another of my mispellings. That should have been "insight" not "incite". Actually the spelling is okay. Just an incorrect word usage on my part. Sorry for the blip. Carry on.

Who Want's it to be Known?
"Who Want's it to be Known?" would be a better title. Ms. Parker, the
real scandal is the media's blatant bias, and politically motivated choice
of choosing when to dig up and blow up, vs. when to ignore and/or hide such scandals. The same bias determines whether the reporting withholds the name repeats it multiple times, along with the party association. That, repeat, that, is the real scandal.

Who cares?
Edwards is a has-been, rejected by his own party, twice. Besides our hands are full making excuses for our own philandering dirt-bag John.

What is the difference between what Edwards is accused of doing, and what McCain did. If the GOP can embrace a candidate who cheated on his crippled wife, and then rushed to marry his wealthy, politically connected mistress, why even pretend to be outraged by Edwards' behavior.

I generally liked this column . . .
. . . because I believe Ms. Parker was trying to behave as we all would like the MSM to behave when faced with stories/rumors such as this. Conservatives were rightly outraged when the NY Slimes covered Kitty Kelly's libelous screed about Mrs. Reagan on their front page above the fold. It would have been much better if the Slimes had written an editorial piece similar to this. Therefore, I believe Ms. Parker is being exceptionally even-handed.

And believe me, as a North Carolina M.D., I am not experiencing any schadenfreude over John Edwards' suffering. I am experiencing nothing of the sort. Rather, what I am experiencing is unmitigated glee that this lying scumbag, who made himself fabulously wealthy by exploiting suffering and destroying the careers of good Doctors, is being taken down so ignominiously.

Where's the libel lawsuit, Johnny Boy? You're the greatest trile loyer on earth, ain't ya? Sue the Enquirer and clear your name! All it would take is to file the suit over there in Orange County (kind of the Berzerkley of the East) and produce the DNA reports. You'd be in the clear and could by up the rest of your neighborhood with the money! Do it now!

Unless the story is true, in which case it's probably best to say nothing except that the Enquirer is a tabloid that prints lies, while not denying the accusations. Hey! That's what you're doing now, isn't it?

schadenfreude
Schadenfreude? Perhaps. But it's also about the hypocrisy of the sanctimonious John Edwards, his two Americas, frivolous lawsuits based on emotional rhetoric versus actual medical research, a family, and a wife with terminal cancer. It's also about the duplicity of the Media... you know if this happened to Mitt Romney, they'd be camped out on his lawn, en masse! The veracity of this "tabloid" story is borne out by the fact that the trial lawyer accused, isn't suing the eyelids off the National Enquirer.

While I generally agree with Ms. Parker, I think in her pursuit of the moral high ground, she's missed the salient point: The predicament that Edwards finds himself in is directly the result of choices HE made.


The non-MSM
This blog has come as a terrible shock to me---I thought the supermarket tabloids are an unimpeachable source of the REAL news, especially since the publication of the famous story claiming that 23 US Senators are actually space aliens. Events of the last couple of decades have proved this to be true (Arlen Specter, for example). I think recent revelations of Senatorial (and Senators-in-training) misconduct are merely signs that the aliens are becoming more bold.

Who Wants To Know
Just wanted to say ditto to Bob in DC Comment #20

Parker
As the Hallmark commercial asks when student Parket returns to give her former
professor/teacher a card and thank him for his
fine efforts and influence on her life..."So what did you become Parker?"
and she replies,"I became a teacher, like you", so you a journalist, have indeed become a teacher and "commenter" on our culture, our way of life, our values and a voice many of us look forward to hearing/reading regularly.
Thank you Parker for another fine article, we look forward to your next and next and next
fine efforts. You have not disappointed this reader and my hunch is you will not.
You appear young compared to many of us, but
you are getting better like a bottle of fine wine...my comments are to praise you, throw a
bouquet of flowers/words your way and to encourage you to stay the course.
Thank you.

Parker is Terrific!
I agree with yogi bear. Kathleen Parker has a fine wit and pitch perfect powers of observation. She never lets me down. Though I do think you're going a little easy on the MSM this time, Kathleen. As many have pointed out above, were Edwards a Republican, there would be MSM reporters camped out all over the lawn of his palatial estate! Still, I applaud you for striving to take to moral high road. You always do, and with such style!

Double Standards
Normally you are right on, Mrs Parker, but you really got side tracked this time, perhaps by your childhood memories.
The reason I see this as important is the rampant double standard in reporting that is going on here.
When Larry Craig stood accused, he was vilified in the MSM. His crime was something that, had be been a Democrat, would have been dismissed as something between consenting adults.
That is but one example. R's regularly get vilified in the media. D's do not. In fact, as I'm sure you are aware, D's are usually not even designated as such in stories. Now that may not bother you, but it bothers alot of folks, and that is what the complaints are about. This is so blatant.
The late night comics are laughing at the media. The London Times has criticized the MSM for ignoring the story. It doesn't have to be proven correct before it is written, if written accurately, but that has never stopped stories before, unless there is a D involved.
Its time for a little change here, and some of us want to be believe we can change things.

What temerity!
R's whining about a double standard in the reporting of Craig versus Edwards, while supporting and promoting McCain who did exactly what Edwards is accused of doing.

It is this blatant hypocrisy that has true conservatives looking for the exits in the GOP tent.

Insighting Truth
Edwards vrs Craig's coverage was totally uneven & completely bias. And your using McCain's decades old affair that happened during a reajustment period after YEARS in a Hanoi prison, is pretty lame.

I guess the stress of his wife being cancerous but not sick enough for the sympathy vote, was just too much for the Breck Boy.

FROG: Sorry...
Sorry to sound "monotonous" but what about focusing on the behavior of Edwards' mistress, divorcee Rielle Hunter? WOMEN both married and un-married are biologically drawn to the “ALPHA” male w/ power. Quite a few women love one kind of MAN (e.g., providing financial and emotional support) but want to sleep with another kind of MAN. Right-wing pundits never seem to comment about the other side of the adultery issue, i.e., the “Paternity Fraud” epidemic. According Susan Shapiro Barash, author of "Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets: The Truth About Why Women Lie," published by St. Martin's Press, as many as 60% of women will cheat on their partners. Why? Because half of all wives have such a low opinion of their husbands that they think their husbands will keep them even if they are caught. Result? In cases where paternity is in question between unmarried partners, women lie 30% of the time about paternity. Among married partners, depending upon the study 4%-10% of all women commit paternity fraud. Mandatory paternity tests would reveal the full extent of said epidemic, unfortunately NOW is currently fighting the Tennessee State legislature’s efforts to enact mandatory paternity test for all children born in Tennessee-ironically 80% of women polled oppose such legislation. Big surprise- apparently a woman committing the most despicable form of domestic abuse is a “private matter” between the two domestic partners.

Reasons to know
1) The Mata Hari principle. A POTUS or VPOTUS who can't control his tomcattting is prey to agents of other powers, or even Mafia molls.

2) The Elmer Gantry principle. If the POTUS or VPOTUS in question can lie so blatantly about what should in theory be the most important relationship in his life, why should we believe him about anything?

3) The Camelot is Over Principle. Foley, Craig, Packwood -- yes, even Gary Hart -- all wish the MSM had exercised the same "discretion." JFK was the last politician who could rely on MSM "discretion -- see #1, above.

4) The Don't Bring a Knife to a Gunfight Principle. As "Insightful""Truth" proves, the other side has already set the rules for this election. The "private life" of any conservative or, indeed, any Republican is fair game -- thus the private life of ANYONE.

Of course, the milksop, weak tea "conservatism" of Ms. Parker will produce a column like this. Give me Ann Coulter any day.

A public men's room...
...wide stance... Republican.... SCANDAL!!!!

A public men's room...barred door...Democrat...

Vice-Presidential hopeful... not news.


For Insighting Truth
Who writes:

"What temerity!
R's whining about a double standard in the reporting of Craig versus Edwards, while supporting and promoting McCain who did exactly what Edwards is accused of doing.

"It is this blatant hypocrisy that has true conservatives looking for the exits in the GOP tent."

So, McCain had a love child out of wedlock with a mistress while he was married to his first wife? When did this happen? As I understand it both Mccain and his Ex cheated on that marriage.

Also, McCain did not parade his first wife as a valiant, sympathetic supporting figure as part of his election campaign.

But more importantly, since you seem so obsessed with hypocrisy, maybe you can explain why McCain's adultery in his first marriage didn't dissuade Kerry from asking him to be his VP nominee. Why did all of you leftist simpletons repeat the mantra that a Kerry-McCain ticket would "unite the country"? I guess it's OK to support McCain the adulterer if he puts a "D" behind his name, right?

The hypocrites are on the left. Clinton commits serial adultery and even rape and Newsweek sits on the story. That's NEWSWEEK, not the National Enquirer. Edwards has an extramarital love child. Yawn. Jesse Jackson has an extramarital love child. Yawn. Gerry Studds takes a Caribbean vacation with a 19-year-old. Yawn.

But let Rush buy Oxycontin fron his maid or withdraw $9,000 of his own money from the bank. Or let Mark Foley send a suggestive email to an underage page. Well, that's front page news.

You leftists make me want to puke.

wiseone:
Overlooking the obvious misnomer handle, let's examine the rest of your post for reading comprehension.

I could not care less about McCain's affair, or Edwards'. Partisan hypocrisy on both sides is my target.

The details of their respective affairs are irrelevant. The passage of time does not change the facts.

Kerry and McCain are both morally bankrupt. Why are you surprised by overtures of cooperation? McCain observes no restrictions on the formation of alliances. No enemy of the Constitution is too base for McCain to partner with.

I am not a liberal as you understand the term. I supported the impeachment of Clinton. I still support the impeachment of G.W. Bush. They are both equally guilty of rights violations.

Rush's problems with Oxycontin are his own business. I sometimes disagree with Rush, but not because he is or was a drug addict.

Hypocrites, left, or right, make me want to blow chunks! Where do you come down on the issue?

Take heart
Dear Kathleen,
Cheer up! It can be easily discerned by most anyone (including those who bother to post comments) that blogs exist for amusement, showing off, venting bile, etc. For that matter, MSM has proven more reliable in disseminating news only by a matter of degrees. Those seeking truth (which is also subjective), will sort among varying sources and determine what they believe is credible. In that sense, any input from bloggers and responders is sifted through filters and allows the thoughtful reader to decide what information is credible and therefore useful. For what its worth, I find you to be a credible reporter and most of the others on Townhall to be much less credible. Take heart in that and keep up the good work. Mark

Almost Agree
Ms. Parker certainly has a valid point about our society in general; on that point, I agree. However, comparing the Edwards situation to the episode with two old ladies and a pie is a very poor analogy, and a respected journalist such as Ms. Parker surely knows better. Edwards ran for President of the United States, and he was being considered as a running mate for Obama before this "story" began circulating. Moreover, Edward's wife has cancer. Cheating on a healthy wife is one thing; cheating on a wife with a killer disease is quite another, especially since Edwards had no qualms about using the sympathy for his wife as a way to gain support in the primaries. Of course, it also goes without saying that no Republican who had been running for President this year would have been given this kind of favorable treatment by the MSM. Ms. Parker's naivete is breathtaking.

Well, seeing how she didn't...
...drop any names, I guess we could as easily assume she was refering to The Rev. J. Jackson.

He ran for president, but then again he didn't need to lock himself in a mens room, heck ol' Buddy Bill let him shack up, or that is, spend a night in the Lincoln bedroom.

Oh Sure
Oh, yes, aren't the MSM "journalists" oh so discrete and faithful to their "oaths" to report "the news", get their confirmations from reliable sources, mistrust the gossip and rumors, and "get it right" rather than get it first. . . when it involves socialist icons, public figures and politicians.

But suppose it wasn't John Edwards. Suppose it was Mitt Romney, or any other GOP public figure. Does anyone really think the MSM would have been so hesitant to run with the story?

Jesus Christ, if the Duke rape girls had come forward today and said Dick Chenney fathered their kids Walter Effing Cronkite would have come out of retirment and held a press conference condemning Chenney's sordid behavior.

Phony bunch of lying hypocrite useless breasts on boar hog "journalists" anyway.


For Insighting Truth
"Overlooking the obvious misnomer handle..."

This comment is totally off point and equally uninformed.

"...let's examine the rest of your post for reading comprehension."

The failure in "reading comprehension" is all yours, which explains why you missed the main point.

"I could not care less about McCain's affair, or Edwards'. Partisan hypocrisy on both sides is my target."

But apparemtly it's OK with you that such hypocrisy and bias is standard fare from the liberal media. Or do you have some other explanation for why the MSM only "covered" McCain's infidelity after he became the presumptive GOP nominee, but ignored it when they wanted him to accept Kerry's VP offer?

"Kerry and McCain are both morally bankrupt. Why are you surprised by overtures of cooperation?"

I am not surprised. Nor am I surprised that you wish to redirect a discussion of Edwards' tawdry shallowness to allegations against Kerry and McCain. You have no defense for Edwards, do you?

"I am not a liberal as you understand the term."

You are EXACTLY a liberal as I understand the term; changing the subject and attacking others because you have no defense for one of your own while wanting to impeach Bush for crimes you can't even name without so much as a shred of evidence.

"Rush's problems..."

...are off point. The point is that the MSM covered that story but sat on the affairs of Clinton and Edwards.

As I said before, the vast majority of the hypocrisy is on the left, and much of the rest of it lies with those who make excuses, apologize, or attempt to redirect blame instead of condemning cads like Edwards because they're Democrats.

What the heck was that about?
I like Kathleen Parker, but why write about nothing? I guess it's a lack of testosterone. Like Mickey Kaus has.

Hypocritical Oath . . .
The MSM needs to take an oath like doctors do instead of merely projecting the illusion that impartiality is inherent in their "reporting" by the nature of their profession. Unfortunately, ratings & advertising valleys tell the real tale that they will only "treat" those whom they want to make sick. The curtain has been pulled back O' Grand and powerful wizards of the Half Truths you insist on telling.

Obama Speech For Dummies
My fellow Americans:

As your future President I want to thank my supporters, for your mindless support of me, despite my complete lack of any legislative achievement, my pastor's relations with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, or my blatantly leftist voting record while I present myself as some sort of bi-partisan agent of change.

I also like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal behavior somehow qualifies me for the Presidency after 8 years of claiming Bush's youthful drinking disqualifies him. Your hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political posing.

I would also like to thank the Kennedy's for coming out in support of me. There's a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. and Teddy killed a female employee with whom he was having an extra marital affair and who was pregnant with his child. And I'm not going anywhere near the cousins, both literally and figuratively. And I'd like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support. Her love of meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the White House.

Americans should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or achievement , but because I make people feel good. Voting for me causes some white folk to feel relieved of their imagined, racist guilt. I say things that sound meaningful, but don't really mean anything because Americans are tired of things having meaning. If things have meaning, then that means you have to think about them.

Americans are tired of thinking. It's time to shut down the brain, and open up the heart. So when you go to vote, remember don't think, just do. And do it for me.

Thank You.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.


Know Nothing Empty Suit Obama Speech
My fellow Americans:

As your future President I want to thank my supporters, for your mindless support of me, despite my complete lack of any legislative achievement, my pastor's relations with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, or my blatantly leftist voting record while I present myself as some sort of bi-partisan agent of change.

I also like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal behavior somehow qualifies me for the Presidency after 8 years of claiming Bush's youthful drinking disqualifies him. Your hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political posing.

I would also like to thank the Kennedy's for coming out in support of me. There's a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. and Teddy killed a female employee with whom he was having an extra marital affair and who was pregnant with his child. And I'm not going anywhere near the cousins, both literally and figuratively. And I'd like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support. Her love of meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the White House.

Americans should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or achievement , but because I make people feel good. Voting for me causes some white folk to feel relieved of their imagined, racist guilt. I say things that sound meaningful, but don't really mean anything because Americans are tired of things having meaning. If things have meaning, then that means you have to think about them.

Americans are tired of thinking. It's time to shut down the brain, and open up the heart. So when you go to vote, remember don't think, just do. And do it for me.

Thank You.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.


Mickey Kaus, a respected journalist
and blogger. When did that happen?

The MSM is in DENIAL!
Kathleen can you please answer these questions for me? They seem to be puzzling me.

1) Why is Edwards no longer at the top of Obama's Vice President al (VP) list if this is just tabloid news? If he wasn’t there and nothing happened and it’s just tabloid news then he has nothing to be afraid of, right?

2) Why after he was caught in the hotel does he to this day decide to not comment on the hotel? Why has he not come out and actually denied he was there and denied the baby isn’t his? By saying he doesn’t want to comment on it, he is actually not incriminating himself. It’s look to me like a slick trick that lawyers tell their clients to do when they are guilty and don’t want to be accused of perjury later on if it goes to court. Because if it ever did go to court he would have to admit he was there and they would have him on the record as saying he wasn’t there, basically he would be caught in a lie and that would be the end of his political career. Before getting into politics, Edwards was a lawyer right? I have heard he was a very good lawyer. He apparently earned millions when he was a lawyer.

3) Why did the guard at the Hilton who helped Edwards get out of the bathroom admit that the person he helped that night was definitely Edwards? He was interviewed by Fox News. So do you not trust Fox News? They are not a tabloid paper?

4) Why when a Democrat politician gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar journalists immediately start comparing this person’s bad behavior with other politicians who have done the same? Almost making it sound like the norm and that there is nothing wrong with cheating on your wife? Does the name Spitzer ring a bell? Democrat Governor of New York, Spitzer? It’s very interesting that you never hear a word about him anymore but for some reason we continue to hear about Republican Craig.

The MSM is in DENIAL!
Your opinion that the Edwards story isn’t news just doesn’t hold any weight. It is actually a very weak argument and I am embarrassed for you that you are defending a media that most intelligent Americans know is biased. The only people that believe your moronic ideas are other morons in our society. Thank god most of those morons don’t vote but you never know Obama seems to bring out the needy people in our society so they might just want more handouts and vote him into office. I actually would like to see another Jimmy Carter Democrat in office to remind the American people how poorly a Democrat handles our economy. Hell have the Senate and Congress and President slots. Show the American people you’re a do nothing, tax many party. The Democrats will run our economy into the ground, accept defeat in Iraq and all the while have the MSM pushing out stories blaming some else for their mistakes. Wow I love this country we live in, isn’t it great that we have all these puppet masters leading us sheep around?

MSM vs truth
MSM aka Mainstream Media, isn't intersted in the truth, unless, of course, the person of interest is a conservative, or one of their felloow travellers. Then, they will not leave one stone unturned, even if they have to make up some of the truth, to get to the "truth". If the person of interest is a liberal, well, that's what liberals do, don't they? Therefore, it aint news, baby.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.