Quote from Max E. Pad:
Im still waiting for a moderator in a DNC debate to go after Al Gore as a "crazed sex poodle"
Hey, if the woman said so, it must be true right. Why would she lie? Why!
Newt just managed to spin the "open marriage" thing into a positive.
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Hey, if the woman said so, it must be true right. Why would she lie? Why!
I get what you're saying, and I agree with it for the most part. It was reported that there was considerable debate about whether or not to run the story, but that actually wasn't it.
They were on a tight timeline, and many felt that they needed to get Newt's side of the story before presenting it. They felt that getting his side and then airing it on Friday or Saturday, would have been in poor taste as they had just done a hit piece on Mitt Wednesday.
That is the only part that I disagree with. They really should've gotten a rebuttal from Newt first.
But I think you guys are giving Newt WAY too much benefit of the doubt. Those tabloids are not good comparisons. John Edwards has a history of cheating, but not beating. The burden of proof is on woman there. Why were there no bruises or police reports.
In Newt's case, we are talking about a self-aggrandizing, serial cheater, who has demonstrated hundreds of times that he doesn't believe rules apply to him. When a guy cheats on his first wife, asks for a divorce so he can marry one of the mistresses, and then asks for a divorce from her so that he can marry his new mistress, his credibility is shot. When she claims that he asked her to accept the fact that he is a serial adulterer, the question isn't whether it is true. The question is why didn't she already know that!
They were on a tight timeline, and many felt that they needed to get Newt's side of the story before presenting it. They felt that getting his side and then airing it on Friday or Saturday, would have been in poor taste as they had just done a hit piece on Mitt Wednesday.
That is the only part that I disagree with. They really should've gotten a rebuttal from Newt first.
But I think you guys are giving Newt WAY too much benefit of the doubt. Those tabloids are not good comparisons. John Edwards has a history of cheating, but not beating. The burden of proof is on woman there. Why were there no bruises or police reports.
In Newt's case, we are talking about a self-aggrandizing, serial cheater, who has demonstrated hundreds of times that he doesn't believe rules apply to him. When a guy cheats on his first wife, asks for a divorce so he can marry one of the mistresses, and then asks for a divorce from her so that he can marry his new mistress, his credibility is shot. When she claims that he asked her to accept the fact that he is a serial adulterer, the question isn't whether it is true. The question is why didn't she already know that!
You continue to defend the media. I could care less about Newt. As Max said, we all know he is a douche bag. But what if the media does this to YOUR candidate? Then you'll get mad. Then you'll start a thread on ET about how unfair the media is going after Romney or Ron Paul or whoever. What's scary is, if the people accept that this is news and factual, then it only emboldens the media to go further with it. What if you ran for local office and the media has a report of some guy named Jason who said you blew him in the 3rd grade and loved it! Hey, Jason was very clear about this, he said you did it. Why would Jason lie?
Look,we know the media is in bed with the left. Nothing will ever change that. But can we at the very least hold them to some kind of standards, like I don't know, facts and stories with verifiable evidence. And maybe like, I don't know, both sides of the story.
First of all, there was a point where Newt was my candidate. Or should I say, I was leaning toward him as the best choice on the GOP side. He still might be, I'm not sure yet. I'm not trying to defend the media, or slam Newt.
I'm saying that a candidate will be hit with all sorts of accusations that are twisted and completely untrue. They must be able to defend themselves. Most of those things are very easily defended, like your example above. In a court of law, witnesses are used all the time, and it is the job of the attorneys to argue whether the person's character and history make their statements believable. It is great to have hard evidence to back up their story, but it isn't necessarily required. If the person's own history is credible, and their story is shown to align with the history and characteristics of the accused, that is often enough to convict him.
I'm saying that this story isn't a stretch, and that the media didn't come very close to the boundaries you're suggesting. And I'll go one further in that I think they had a responsibility to report it, although they should've been more thorough.
He was getting swiftboated by a veterans group! And there are about 30 of them! And all of them went on the record.
So should it not have been up to the media to determine the credibility of an ex wife FROM 15 YEARS AGO, and find some sort of proof before they simply toss out a he said she said argument during a presidential debate?
Should the media simply question the candidate about any accusation that comes his way, no matter what the source is, and no matter how much proof there is?
Should the media simply question the candidate about any accusation that comes his way, no matter what the source is, and no matter how much proof there is?
Lest we forget:
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
It doesn't even matter if Newt or his ex lied, or if the reporting is nothing but lies, remember?
c
Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
It doesn't even matter if Newt or his ex lied, or if the reporting is nothing but lies, remember?
c