Media hypocrisy reaches new lows in Edwards affair - Page 2

DeanPatsFan · 08-10-2008, 12:46 PM

[QUOTE=cr726;2681152]His magic underwear would not let him.

[IMG]http://www.salamandersociety.com/romney/070219mitt_ann_romney_underwear.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Another quality post from the forum bigot.....

jets5ever · 08-10-2008, 12:55 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2680360]I'm not defending Edwrads here --nor have I for one second, as I think he's a scumbag and am glad not to have supported him-- and I have not defended the NYT story.

All I am saying is that I don't think this particular story has anything to do with the McCain story. It's a different situation entirely, because it is not hitting at a moment where major media outlets have assigned hundreds of people to cover the guy. He's out of the picture, so what's the hurry to break a story about him? If Mike Huckabee had an affair right now, that would be analogous.

(Also, Edwards is not a serious veep candidate, at least not according to anything I've read (and I read a lot). The short list is out there (Kaine, Bayh, Biden, Sibelius, perhaps Nunn, Clinton, Daschle) and he aint on it.)[/QUOTE]

Nice try. If it was Huck or Romney, the NYT would have run the story and you know it. They use a different journalistic standard when the subject is a left winger than they do when it is a right winger. They buried it because Edwards is a left winger. Period, end of discussion. You know this and to deny it is simply laughable and it makes you look like a party hack stooge spouting the received talking points. All of this, "Yes, but..." cr*p you are trying to pull is simply ridiculous.

sackdance · 08-10-2008, 01:36 PM

[QUOTE=jets5ever;2681255]Nice try. If it was Huck or Romney, the NYT would have run the story and you know it.[/QUOTE]

[B]"Unsettling Rumors Embroil Romney"[/B] - Boston, MA - [I]Former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney refused to answer questions from reporters concerning the latest storm of allegations concerning extramarital affair and having children out-of-wedlock leaving many in Washington to wonder what the truth really is...[/I], etc. and so on.

Nah, the Times could never be so tawdry...

[B]The New York Times

Thursday 21 February 2008[/B]

[I] 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, in his offices and aboard 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.[/I]

nuu faaola · 08-10-2008, 05:21 PM

[QUOTE=jets5ever;2681255]Nice try. If it was Huck or Romney, the NYT would have run the story and you know it. They use a different journalistic standard when the subject is a left winger than they do when it is a right winger. They buried it because Edwards is a left winger. Period, end of discussion. You know this and to deny it is simply laughable and it makes you look like a party hack stooge spouting the received talking points. All of this, "Yes, but..." cr*p you are trying to pull is simply ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

What does what NYT would do in a hypothetical situation have to do with a thread about how the AP handled this story?

I just think it is two separate organizations and two distinct situations. That's all I'm saying.

Warfish · 08-10-2008, 06:49 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2681830]What does what NYT would do in a hypothetical situation have to do with a thread about how the AP handled this story?

I just think it is two separate organizations and two distinct situations. That's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect Nuu, THIS type of lame defense of the undefendable is why I've had so many issues with you of late.

I don't know what it is, but you have simply lost your objectivity, and you used to have it it spades IMO.

Jets5 is absolutely right on this. The ONLY defense on this is inherant and deep liberal-bias. The division of treatement in the media has never been clearer than the Edwards Affair vs. the McCain "Affair" treatment has shown.

nuu faaola · 08-10-2008, 09:58 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2681951]With all due respect Nuu, THIS type of lame defense of the undefendable is why I've had so many issues with you of late.

I don't know what it is, but you have simply lost your objectivity, and you used to have it it spades IMO.

Jets5 is absolutely right on this. The ONLY defense on this is inherant and deep liberal-bias. The division of treatement in the media has never been clearer than the Edwards Affair vs. the McCain "Affair" treatment has shown.[/QUOTE]

I htink they are two different stories.

In both cases, the AP followed one of its member sources and treated their reporting as fact. The NYT botched the McCain story, and the AP got burned by treating it as credulous.

This time they followed ABC and got a better result.

I also think it's possible that the error on the McCain thing perhaps played a role in making the media in general more cautious with the Edwards story.

Regardless, the truth is out now and that's what's important.

jets5ever · 08-11-2008, 08:47 AM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2681830]What does what NYT would do in a hypothetical situation have to do with a thread about how the AP handled this story?

I just think it is two separate organizations and two distinct situations. That's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

Nuu - Thy NYT smeared McCain based on nothing. They buried and ignored the Edwards story. Think a little more broadly than this particular thread and the AP. I have not mentioned the AP. The AP is a joke too, for the reasons Shakin pointed out.

Your contention that ignoring the Edwards story isn'r a result of bias is simply absurd and beyond your normally very insightful, fair and honest analysis.

You're defending your team here boss, nothing more. It's pretty lame.

jets5ever · 08-11-2008, 08:50 AM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2682270]
I also think it's possible that the error on the McCain thing perhaps played a role in making the media in general more cautious with the Edwards story.

[/QUOTE]

Of course you think this way because, in this instance, you're being a partisan hack and nothing more. Yes, the media (and NYT specifically) [I]just happened[/I] to smear a right-winger and let a left-winger off the hook, it was all coincidence and had nothing to do with politics. Exactly right. And hey, Obama had neeeeever heard Wright make any racist or anti-American remarks in 20 years until recently.....

Spirit of Weeb · 08-11-2008, 11:12 AM

The media has bigger fish to fry, and more important stories to enlighten us with like senator larry craig.

Lets all remember this example next time one of our lib pals on this board claim no liberal media bias.

Kinda make you wonder about the media's current darling and all the stuff we should be learning about.

sackdance · 08-11-2008, 12:48 PM

[QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb;2682924]The media has bigger fish to fry, and more important stories to enlighten us with like senator larry craig.

Lets all remember this example next time one of our lib pals on this board claim no liberal media bias.

Kinda make you wonder about the media's current darling and all the stuff we should be learning about.[/QUOTE]
No bias? How about when liberals claim that the MSM is pro-conservative? They claim it all the time.

08-10-2008, 12:46 PM	#21
DeanPatsFan Lib Free Or Die..... All Pro Annoying Chowd Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,161	[QUOTE=cr726;2681152]His magic underwear would not let him. [IMG]http://www.salamandersociety.com/romney/070219mitt_ann_romney_underwear.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Another quality post from the forum bigot.....

08-10-2008, 12:55 PM	#22
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2680360]I'm not defending Edwrads here --nor have I for one second, as I think he's a scumbag and am glad not to have supported him-- and I have not defended the NYT story. All I am saying is that I don't think this particular story has anything to do with the McCain story. It's a different situation entirely, because it is not hitting at a moment where major media outlets have assigned hundreds of people to cover the guy. He's out of the picture, so what's the hurry to break a story about him? If Mike Huckabee had an affair right now, that would be analogous. (Also, Edwards is not a serious veep candidate, at least not according to anything I've read (and I read a lot). The short list is out there (Kaine, Bayh, Biden, Sibelius, perhaps Nunn, Clinton, Daschle) and he aint on it.)[/QUOTE] Nice try. If it was Huck or Romney, the NYT would have run the story and you know it. They use a different journalistic standard when the subject is a left winger than they do when it is a right winger. They buried it because Edwards is a left winger. Period, end of discussion. You know this and to deny it is simply laughable and it makes you look like a party hack stooge spouting the received talking points. All of this, "Yes, but..." cr*p you are trying to pull is simply ridiculous.

08-10-2008, 01:36 PM	#23
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,906	[QUOTE=jets5ever;2681255]Nice try. If it was Huck or Romney, the NYT would have run the story and you know it.[/QUOTE] [B]"Unsettling Rumors Embroil Romney"[/B] - Boston, MA - [I]Former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney refused to answer questions from reporters concerning the latest storm of allegations concerning extramarital affair and having children out-of-wedlock leaving many in Washington to wonder what the truth really is...[/I], etc. and so on. Nah, the Times could never be so tawdry... [B]The New York Times Thursday 21 February 2008[/B] [I] 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, in his offices and aboard 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.[/I]

08-10-2008, 05:21 PM	#24
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	[QUOTE=jets5ever;2681255]Nice try. If it was Huck or Romney, the NYT would have run the story and you know it. They use a different journalistic standard when the subject is a left winger than they do when it is a right winger. They buried it because Edwards is a left winger. Period, end of discussion. You know this and to deny it is simply laughable and it makes you look like a party hack stooge spouting the received talking points. All of this, "Yes, but..." cr*p you are trying to pull is simply ridiculous.[/QUOTE] What does what NYT would do in a hypothetical situation have to do with a thread about how the AP handled this story? I just think it is two separate organizations and two distinct situations. That's all I'm saying.

08-10-2008, 06:49 PM	#25
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2681830]What does what NYT would do in a hypothetical situation have to do with a thread about how the AP handled this story? I just think it is two separate organizations and two distinct situations. That's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE] With all due respect Nuu, THIS type of lame defense of the undefendable is why I've had so many issues with you of late. I don't know what it is, but you have simply lost your objectivity, and you used to have it it spades IMO. Jets5 is absolutely right on this. The ONLY defense on this is inherant and deep liberal-bias. The division of treatement in the media has never been clearer than the Edwards Affair vs. the McCain "Affair" treatment has shown.

08-10-2008, 09:58 PM	#26
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,255	[QUOTE=Warfish;2681951]With all due respect Nuu, THIS type of lame defense of the undefendable is why I've had so many issues with you of late. I don't know what it is, but you have simply lost your objectivity, and you used to have it it spades IMO. Jets5 is absolutely right on this. The ONLY defense on this is inherant and deep liberal-bias. The division of treatement in the media has never been clearer than the Edwards Affair vs. the McCain "Affair" treatment has shown.[/QUOTE] I htink they are two different stories. In both cases, the AP followed one of its member sources and treated their reporting as fact. The NYT botched the McCain story, and the AP got burned by treating it as credulous. This time they followed ABC and got a better result. I also think it's possible that the error on the McCain thing perhaps played a role in making the media in general more cautious with the Edwards story. Regardless, the truth is out now and that's what's important.

08-11-2008, 08:47 AM	#27
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2681830]What does what NYT would do in a hypothetical situation have to do with a thread about how the AP handled this story? I just think it is two separate organizations and two distinct situations. That's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE] Nuu - Thy NYT smeared McCain based on nothing. They buried and ignored the Edwards story. Think a little more broadly than this particular thread and the AP. I have not mentioned the AP. The AP is a joke too, for the reasons Shakin pointed out. Your contention that ignoring the Edwards story isn'r a result of bias is simply absurd and beyond your normally very insightful, fair and honest analysis. You're defending your team here boss, nothing more. It's pretty lame.

08-11-2008, 08:50 AM	#28
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2682270] I also think it's possible that the error on the McCain thing perhaps played a role in making the media in general more cautious with the Edwards story. [/QUOTE] Of course you think this way because, in this instance, you're being a partisan hack and nothing more. Yes, the media (and NYT specifically) [I]just happened[/I] to smear a right-winger and let a left-winger off the hook, it was all coincidence and had nothing to do with politics. Exactly right. And hey, Obama had neeeeever heard Wright make any racist or anti-American remarks in 20 years until recently.....

08-11-2008, 11:12 AM	#29
Spirit of Weeb All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 2,393	The media has bigger fish to fry, and more important stories to enlighten us with like senator larry craig. Lets all remember this example next time one of our lib pals on this board claim no liberal media bias. Kinda make you wonder about the media's current darling and all the stuff we should be learning about.

08-11-2008, 12:48 PM	#30
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,906	[QUOTE=Spirit of Weeb;2682924]The media has bigger fish to fry, and more important stories to enlighten us with like senator larry craig. Lets all remember this example next time one of our lib pals on this board claim no liberal media bias. Kinda make you wonder about the media's current darling and all the stuff we should be learning about.[/QUOTE] No bias? How about when liberals claim that the MSM is pro-conservative? They claim it all the time.