Originally posted by Nash
Jesus...
Yeah, it was all about that.
The reporters "flayed him alive" simply because they were (in your words) Democrats. Not because there was widespread crime going down. No... Gotta be a motive. A scapegoat. A reason. A revision.
Couldn't possibly be because it was in fact true.
No idea what this kind of relativism costs you.....
Nash,
Not relativism, reality. The Post's (and particularly its owners and editors) adversarial relationship with Nixon prior to Watergate was well documented, and I didn't say "Democrats," I said liberals.
In the real world of media, which is the world my father has worked in for most of his life, and unfortunately the world that permeated my childhood, Media outlets run defamatory stories on pols they dislike and spike promising but defamatory stories on pols they like.
For instance, the Washington Post (and Newsweek which the Post owns and controls), the same paper that eagerly printed Bernstein and Woodward's expose of the Nixon administration shenanigans, actively spiked even more sensational stories during the Clinton years - often via direct requests from the Clinton "War Room" to the editor (another fact that has been exposed in several books both right and left).
For example: Spiked -
* Michael Isikoff's multiple source story about Clinton having an affair with an intern and then asking her to lie about it under oath
* Michael Isikoff's report on Paula Jones
* Michael Isikoff's multiple source story about Clinton's sexual assualt of Kathleen Wiley
Now you may say, "well hrrumph, that's nasty sexual stuff, they spiked it because it's no ones business who a politician sexually harasses behind closed doors." Not so fast kemosabe, the Washington Post was also the first paper to run claims by several women that Republican Bob Packwood had sexually harrassed them. In fact, that story had less documentation and research when it appeared than two of Isikoff's
spiked stories.
Additionally the Post spiked sourced stories about Gore using pot, while running with single source claims that Bush used coke during the 2000 elections.
Well you might say "this wasn't about sex or drugs, it was about an administration attempting to hide illegal activities done during an election campaign and involving attempts to thwart an FBI investigation." Sorry, in 1999 the Washington Post also spiked the story of Four FBI agents who testified before the Senate Government Affairs Committee as to how the Clinton Justice Department subverted their probe of Democratic campaign fundraising, specifically in the case of Charlie Trie. They consistently bent over backwards NOT to investigate or report anything related to the Clinton/Gore fundraising scandals.
And I could go on and on listing cases where the Post helped liberals and harmed conservatives via selective investigating and publishing.
But Nash you misunderstand me if you believe my point is the simplistic Republicans good, honest, pure and objective, Democrats Evil, dishonest, corrupt, and biased and vice versa that seems to predominate in these forums, my point is simply to say wake up,
all of your media outlets are owned and edited by men with allies and agendas they wish to advance. Men like Raines and Ailes and in our own day, and Graham, Downie, and Simmons in Nixon's.
Rent Citizen Kane sometime for an entertaining view of exactly how "objective" the relationship between editors and politicians always has been...
- SEAGOON
