A case of media bias???

[MS Fowler]

Its good to compare how the media handle similar stories.

This from Bret Boezel's column:
In 1994, when Paula Jones publicly, at a national press conference for God's sakes, accused President Clinton of exposing himself while demanding oral sex -- something no one accuses Cain of doing -- CBS and NBC completely ignored her press conference. ABC gave it just 16 seconds.

When Kathleen Willey accused Bill Clinton in 1997 of sexually groping her in the Oval Office when he was president -- another woman coming forward publicly with a charge far more serious than anything even suggested about Cain -- the networks ran a grand total of three stories, the longest of which was just 1 minute.

And in the first five days after the publication of the 1999 Wall Street Journal column in which Juanita Broaddrick reluctantly came forward and charged the President with a bloody rape, the number of news stories totaled to three.
end of quoted material...
Three episodes, three named accusers. Alleged actual sexual harassment, or worse, and the major media gives it a total of under 5 minutes coverage, and a few stories.
Compare to the accusation against Cain.
No named accusers.
No specific acts named or described.
And there has been no stop coverage.

I still don't know facts, maybe Cain did do something. But the truth is that NO ONE knows the facts. The worst that the accusation might be is some sort of gesture. Clinton was accused of groping and even forced rape, and yet he is a hero of the Left, and Cain should just quit.

Does anyone still believe that the main stream media is fair and balanced? Is it just possible that they have an agenda?

Don't give me the story that its all about ratings. The ratings on an investigation into sexual crimes by a President would have been thru the roof. And still they refused to cover it, so that "ratings" myth is patently false.

Again, I admit that Cain may be a real sleaze, but shouldn't we demand facts before the lynching?

[JollyRoger]

The proposition that Clinton's sexual escapades were not publicized is ridiculous. Is the attempt to defend Cain so desperate it now resorts to utter banality? Hey, don't look at Cain, hey, look over here! Blue dress! Clinton the Rapist! Juanita!

Jezus, don't you people ever tire of this red herring crap? Cain's biggest problem is Cain. He has contradicted himself and told three different stories. That's news, and Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with it. Politico's CEO is a big time Republican big wig, and the publication didn't even exist during the Clinton years. If your looking for a bad guy, start with him:

Fred Ryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right wing victimhood, it's a hell of a drug.
....

[jplinville]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The proposition that Clinton's sexual escapades were not publicized is ridiculous. Is the attempt to defend Cain so desperate it now resorts to utter banality? Hey, don't look at Cain, hey, look over here! Blue dress! Clinton the Rapist! Juanita!

Jezus, don't you people ever tire of this red herring crap? Cain's biggest problem is Cain. He has contradicted himself and told three different stories. That's news, and Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with it. Politico's CEO is a big time Republican big wig, and the publication didn't even exist during the Clinton years. If your looking for a bad guy, start with him:

Fred Ryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right wing victimhood, it's a hell of a drug.
....

Do you ever tire of whining about the Right?

[JollyRoger]

Whining? A right wing publication, Politico, broke this story and continues to push it. And the strategy from you panty wads is to whine about "the left wing media bias" even tho the real story here is that the Republican Party is currently eating itself alive all on it's own. Karl Rove is doing more damage to Cain on Fox News than any liberal is. And yet you people whine about what victims you are of some supposed paranoid conspiracy. It's like watching Hitler blame everything on the Jews to the point where it has gone past rationality and reason. A publication run by a the guy who is the head of something called "The Ronald Reagan Foundation", yeah, that's a real liberal you got there bud, I bet he totally ignored the who Clinton thing.

[Kuan]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

facts before the lynching?

Interesting choice of words.

[JollyRoger]

He seems to be being lynched by a guy who's got this on his resume:

On November 4, 1987, President Reagan personally appointed Ryan to be Assistant to the President.[1]
[edit]Chief of Staff (1989–1995)

When President Reagan left office on January 20, 1989, he and First Lady Nancy Reagan returned to California. Ryan was hired to be the former President's post-Chief of Staff. During this time, Ryan was responsible for the establishment and operation of Reagan's office in Century City.[2] He was also very instrumental in the design, fundraising, planning, and overseeing the construction of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
Ryan left his position as Chief of Staff in 1995 when, a year earlier, President Reagan announced to the world that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.[2] Following this service, he became vice-chairman of the television, cable, and internet company Allbritton Communications; he continues to serve in this position.[3]
[edit]Reagan Foundation

In 1995, Ryan became the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, serving with fellow board members including First Lady Nancy Reagan and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He manages the foundation and takes part in library events, with a mission of "preserving Ronald Reagan's legacy."[4]

That's a real liberal there, fer sure, all of us are opening our wallets to get the old Ronald Reagan Library the funding it needs.

What I see is a quacking duck. This duck looks like the Republican establishment and quacks like the Republican establishment. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck named Romney.

[jplinville]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Whining? A right wing publication, Politico, broke this story and continues to push it. And the strategy from you panty wads is to whine about "the left wing media bias" even tho the real story here is that the Republican Party is currently eating itself alive all on it's own. Karl Rove is doing more damage to Cain on Fox News than any liberal is. And yet you people whine about what victims you are of some supposed paranoid conspiracy. It's like watching Hitler blame everything on the Jews to the point where it has gone past rationality and reason. A publication run by a the guy who is the head of something called "The Ronald Reagan Foundation", yeah, that's a real liberal you got there bud, I bet he totally ignored the who Clinton thing.

Much like your team has done to Bush...interesting you'd go down that road.

[JollyRoger]

Today's Politico:

Herman Cain accuser attorney: Settlement dated 9/99, Kilgore signed - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Wow, that old Ronald Reagan guy sure is making Jay Leno's job easier.

The right wing is becoming unhinged. A right wing publication led by Reagan guys is hammering Cain everyday, and it's a left wing media conspiracy. Brains are turning to mush on the right.

How about a little more hot news right off the old Reagan Guy press?

Herman Cain allegation: Sources reveal new details - Kenneth P. Vogel and Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com


Wow. Amazing, former assistant to Reagan and current head of the Reagan Library is the head of the Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy!

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by jplinville

Much like your team has done to Bush...interesting you'd go down that road.

Coming from some guy who used to spout off about militias he belonged to, you fit right in, Mr. Stormtrooper.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Its good to compare how the media handle similar stories.

This from Bret Boezel's column:...

I know what they say about attacking the messenger, but reading a Boezel column is truly a waste of time. So slanted. So unreliable. Were I to read his column, I would need to go elsewhere to learn the facts, so what's the point? He offers nothing.

Having said that, I think there probably is a double standard going on against Cain, but it's probably too early to really judge that.

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by Honus

I know what they say about attacking the messenger, but reading a Boezel column is truly a waste of time. So slanted. So unreliable. Were I to read his column, I would need to go elsewhere to learn the facts, so what's the point? He offers nothing.

Having said that, I think there probably is a double standard going on against Cain, but it's probably too early to really judge that.

I don't have access to Nexus, so I can't verify Mr Boezel's assertion as to the number of media stories and the air time.
Surely someone here has access and could post the "true facts" if Mr. Boezel is not speaking the truth.
It would be better than simple ad hominum.

By the way, Republicans are the stupid party. No news there.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by Honus

I know what they say about attacking the messenger, but reading a Boezel column is truly a waste of time. So slanted. So unreliable. Were I to read his column, I would need to go elsewhere to learn the facts, so what's the point? He offers nothing.

Having said that, I think there probably is a double standard going on against Cain, but it's probably too early to really judge that.

What we are seeing is the difference between one-way TV and talk radio and the Internet. The Yucksters and Dittoheads all nod their heads and say "Ditto!" when assertions are made by some talking head. On the internet, the conversation isn't one way, we can check the actual facts ourselves and determine if we are being fed BS. Fred Ryan, the CEO of Politico isn't just some dusty board member or some VP who signs checks somewhere where one can claim some conspiratorial "link", he runs the damn place. If he didn't want these reporters doing this, and believe me, all of this story is coming from original reporting done by Politico, all he has to do is pick up the phone and tell them to stop. All he has to do is fire someone if they won't. He's the CEO. Nothing happens there without his approval. Left wing conspiracy? From the head of the Reagan Library? The entire idea is preposterous and typical of top RWNJ Bozell, a religious-right clown who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old and that Obama is a Muslim, and that the US needs a one party "Christian Nation" dictatorship.

The political calculus is easy to see here by anyone who is informed. With Perry out of the way, Romney sees the possibility opening up that he could win the Iowa Caucus, The New Hampshire Primary, and the one that truly chaps his ass, The South Carolina Primary. If he wins all three, the nomination is sewn up, it's over. He can spend the rest of his time and money fighting Obama from then to the election. If he doesn't win all three, it means months of bruising and expensive primary fights with him under constant, and very public, attack by the GOP Far Right. The only thing that stands in his way is Cain. This Cain thing is a right wing hit job, by the GOP establishment on a loose cannon who appeared out of no where and is about to upset the establishment Romney apple cart. Left wing conspiracy? There is nothing "the left" would like to see more than Cain and Romney in a year long shark fight.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

When Kathleen Willey accused Bill Clinton in 1997 of sexually groping her in the Oval Office when he was president -- another woman coming forward publicly with a charge far more serious than anything even suggested about Cain -- the networks ran a grand total of three stories, the longest of which was just 1 minute.

Kathleen Willey has no credibility, the other 2 not much.

According to Willey, during a meeting in the private study of the Oval Office, Clinton had embraced her tightly, kissed her on the mouth. Clinton denied assaulting Willey. The Clinton White House released details of 15 letters and 12 telephone messages that Willey had sent to Clinton after the alleged incident. In all of these, she appeared friendly and eager for more contact with Clinton.

According to Linda Tripp’s grand jury testimony, she felt Willey pursued a romance with Clinton from the start of her White House affiliation. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp’s testimony, she wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access, on the Chesapeake Bay.

Kathleen Willey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willey reportedly lobbied hard to work on Clinton's '96 campaign, this 3 years after the alleged groping/assault.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I don't have access to Nexus, so I can't verify Mr Boezel's assertion as to the number of media stories and the air time.
Surely someone here has access and could post the "true facts" if Mr. Boezel is not speaking the truth.
It would be better than simple ad hominum.

Better in what way? I am offended by any suggestion that I should take a second out of my day to fact check that propagandist. If someone has a worthwhile source on this issue, I'd be happy to read it. By "worthwhile" I don't mean unbiased, because (a) there is no such thing and (b) biased sources can provide information that others might miss or leave out. Bozell is slime. Not worthy of further discussion.

By the way, Republicans are the stupid party. No news there.

Who said that?

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Kathleen Willey has no credibility, the other 2 not much.

.

So anonymous accusations are more reliable?