Skip to main content

View Diary: Get Ready: Halperin's "Juicy" Campaign Gossip Book Published UPD: NY Mag and NYT weigh in (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Interesting how little real reporting media does. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ksh01, fou, 5x5, dotster, Tchrldy, ETF

    Clinton's affair, Edwards affair both would doom either presidential campaign yet the media never investigates despite having clear reasons to investigate.

    Reid's analysis is absolutely correct if not politically correct.  Shame that wasn't reported and discussed.

    The odd part is the media publishes it all after the fact so it's not like they don't know and publish the facts, just that they hide them from the public so public can't make as informed a decision as possible.

    •  ?? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ksh01, dotster, DrFitz, Besdeekian

      How can you sandbag a candidate in the general election if you let the public know his/her dirty secrets during the primaries?

      The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

      by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:45:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, Halperin must have been (9+ / 0-)

        eating himself alive when Obama won the nomination. All the dirty laundry he'd collected over the previous couple of years turned into useless rags.

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

        by sidnora on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:51:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  None of that reported during general election. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tmo, ksh01, dotster, ETF

        But the media clearly knows all this stuff because it ALWAYS comes out after the election. The only people in the dark are the voters having to make the decisions.

        Of course there is a financial incentive for reporters to not report and save it up for a book where they get paid directly vs just the salary for reporting.

        And it is a GOP owned and operated media so it may be there's a push to get the weakest Democrat (Clinton or Edwards in 2008) nominated so they can then expose them in the general election.

        For all the nattering over "web journalists" don't see any of them any where near getting these stories. Take the Edwards with all their public fights and misbehavior. No one recorded it on their iPhone? Not even the audio?

        •  The media was all geared with ammunition (5+ / 0-)

          if either Hillary or Edwards won the nomination.  Obama threw a big wrench in their plan to keep Repub control of the presidency.

          •  I agree, that's why the msm is makimg up outrages (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ksh01, dotster, jalenth, kat68, carmenjones, ETF

            Sometimes I think the real reason that the media seems to be going after Obama now is because he hasn't given them the usual personal scandals and fuck ups that they want. Turns out he's fairly boring, straight laced guy. Kinda nerdy if you will. The GOP owned media only has use for Democrats when they provide them with scandalous fodder. Now only GOP politicians are giving them that and the Democratic President is being all grown up and shit. Given what Edwards and possible Clinton could have provided, they must be really pissed that they got stuck covering Obama. Obama's just giving them boring stuff like policy and governing.

            Things fall apart; the center cannot hold-Yeats Grab a mop- President Barack Obama

            by TexasMango on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 12:04:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  At the time, they couldn't get anybody associated (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmo, ksh01

          with the campaign to talk on or off the record about the rumors.  Unlike tab outfits(or book publishers), most MSM outlets won't pay sources.

          •  An iPhone audio or video? (0+ / 0-)

            Should have been easy to capture and post anonymously on YouTube.

            •  Shot by whom? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ksh01

              Staffers(who were, after all, paid employees of Edwards)weren't talking at the time.  

              If a disgruntled staffer wanted to produce an unflattering clandestine video of John or Elizabeth Edwards, they could have.  But they didn't.  If Ms. "Hunter" wanted to publicly out Edwards as the father of her child, she could have.  But she didn't.  

              There was no media conspiracy to cover up for Edwards.  With nobody in the know willing to discuss the rumors at the time, the MSM would have had to aim cameras at hotel windows and bribe service employees in order to obtain direct evidence.  

    •  Now all that petty media sniping (4+ / 0-)

      aimed at Edwards during the primaries makes more sense.

      Professional sourcing standards wouldn't allow for reporting of the really salacious stuff, so journalists vented their indignation by hassling Edwards over getting his hair cut by a professional stylis(OMG!)and living in a nice house(Gasp!).

    •  Probably one reason they can't report the news (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ksh01

      is because they are too busy keeping up on all the sleazy gossip.  The excerpts posted here demonstrate why no one should give Mark Halperin the time of day as a journalist. Unfortunately the media is no more than a big clique that reminds one of the A-list high school group who cared for nothing but their narrow-minded narcissistic world.  That's what 90% of the broadcast and print media have become. They revel in gossip, parties, six figure salaries and care nothing for the good of the country.  They all need to take a citizenship course.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site