It's no surprise that the report of John Edward's affair was broken by the nonserious tabloid "The National Inquirer." With occasional very rare exceptions, that's all any of the media is any more - tabloids. Sex sells tabloids, especially if it is sex by a Democratic politician.
So it is no surprise that when the National Inquirer hassles John Edwards into confessing an affair, the media jumps all over it and distributes the story far and wide. Here, for example is ABC News carrying the story - broken by the National Inquirer, remember - as though it were real news.
What makes it real news, worthy of being carried by every mainstream "News" outlet in the U.S.? Sure, John Edwards ran for the Democratic nomination for President, but he never was a contender. So why has the news media jumped all over this story and pushed it as far as they could, delving into personal details that are of no concern to anyone outside the Edwards family?
Well, he's a prominent Democrat, that's why.
Think not? Do you remember this story? It was real news about a man who really does have a shot at becoming President - and it died with no follow-up. No delving into the reactions of the politician's family. No reportorial effort to see if it effected the candidate's policies in any way. A day or two, a fast denial by the politician's campaign, and then - (crickets.)
Why no follow up or repeated stories? Well simple. It was about a Republican politician. Another example is the stories of Arnold Schwarzenegger's history of sexual abuse of women. Not a big story because Arnold is a Republican politician. For some reason Arnold was not considered worthy of a full-court press by the National Inquirer.
The media has a narrative that stories about Democratic politician's sex lives are important and that the details matter, but stories about Republicans are one and two day stories that are never followed up on. This is not just the media narrative, though. It is also the actions of the Republican opposition researchers who dig these things up and then feed the stories into the right-wing Wurlitzer which plays the media and accentuates its reaction to the already existing media narrative.
The right-wing Wurlitzer is out in force during this Presidential election. It's not just the play of the news regarding John Edward's sexual indiscretion. It's also the stories about Obama's strange weaknesses. Really now, how can it be a weakness for Obama that he is popular and respected, very well-educated, quite physically fit (as, of course, are both George W. Bush and a potential future Republican Presidential nominee, General Petreaus) and gives great speeches that enthusiastic people WANT to attend?
In what kind of Bizarro world are those weaknesses for a Presidential candidate while the inability to remember the substance of a question long enough to answer it as McCain has repeatedly demonstrated is, together with McCain's great age and likely PTSD from his extended captivity and torture not a severe weakness?
Oh, sorry. I was thinking that the media was a potential watchdog on government as my civics teachers used to teach. But apparently the only remaining news watch dogs are the tabloids who cover Democratic political sexual peccadilloes. It is too much now to expect news judgment and competence from the media that is proud of Bill O'Reilly and the misogynist Chris Matthews and led by Matt Drudge. My bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment