Did the Mainstream Media Miss the Boat? (the Parallax View)
The National Enquirer had the John Edwards story for weeks, and it was ignored by the mainstream media. All over the Internet and elsewhere we are hearing about how the lines of communication are changing; how the mainstream media are no longer in charge; how they had the story, but, unwisely, chose to ignore it; how it's a new dawning in the world of communication; how blah blah blah.
Joe Klein has this to say about all that (and it's about time).
Comments
I disagree with this article on one account. If Obama didn't know about this and chose him as his VP running mate and THEN it came out in the National Enquirer, McCain would have absolutely been a shoo-in and it would have cost the Democrats the election. Now, if Obama knew about it and drew a line through his name and nothing more was said, then I can live with that. However, if ignoring the private lives of people is the rule that we go by, then the Republican Conservatives deserve the same code of privacy and we have to accept that too.
Posted by: h | August 10, 2008 10:25 AM
It's funny - I see more in more, in paper and on TV, articles/stories about how the media is covering different topics. How about just covering the topics, instead of continuing to grapple over how well/not well topics are being covered. And yes, it'd be nice if some of the topics had some substance. Since the beginning of this month, 11 soldiers were killed in Iraq. 83 known Iraqis were killed. Not sure how many Americans died due to lack of healthcare or food. Yes, Edwards is an ass for not just admitting it (or for doing it in the first place), but personally I care more about other issues than who he's sleeping with - I mean really, she's not even that hot.
Posted by: Jonathan | August 10, 2008 12:37 PM
This excuse that Time magazine is just too above reporting on sexual indiscretions or former drug use because those things don't even matter sounds pretty arrogant. So Time magazine is now going to tell us which personality flaws about our candidates are worth us knowing about? Are we too dumb to decide on our own if a candidate's bad points outweigh their good ones? Clinton's popularity didn't suffer all that much after the Lewinsky scandal, and I'll bet most of the people who voted for him in the first place figured that he was a womanizer but didn't care.
The job of the media is to report all the facts so that their audience can construct their own opinions. Most adults alive today can understand that politicians have human weaknesses, but by not reporting on them Time and the other media outlets that ignored this story are propagating the unrealistic illusions that these people are trying to portray. It seems to me like they are in collusion on a great ruse.
By the way, some people wouldn't trust a man who would lie and cheat while his wife was battling a life-threatening illness. For these people character matters, and maybe it is unrealistic, or maybe loyalty and honesty are standards we should demand of our elected leaders and force them to live up to. Either way, it isn't up for Time to decide.
Posted by: Danielle | August 11, 2008 4:42 AM
Who cares about any of this 1stThe Enquirer,a bastion of integrity,had the story.I read that rag only if I'm not helping the wife with the groceries on the belt.2nd the man is the past not the future.Besides Bobba did it and it made him an icon.Sorry I had to say it.
Posted by: Bill Conway | August 11, 2008 5:47 AM
Icon? More like a Tootsie Pop. : )
Posted by: h | August 12, 2008 4:20 PM