Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
So if it's all the big bad media giving Team D a pass on these sort of things, how is it that David Vitter still has a job and Eliot Spitzer and Anthony Weiner don't?
Or maybe you're wrong and the media loves a good sex scandal, regardless. As Tribesman said - bollox.
|
Without story counts, etc, there is no data. I'm interested in actual word counts on stories—and given a pre-primary candidate is a lower character than a sitting senator, president, etc, it should be way lower than people in those positions with similar allegations.
In the case of Wiener, there were PICTURES on the net. If there was actual, you know, evidence, I'd have a different opinion about this cain thing. The idea that women don't lie about this is absurd. Without actual evidence, the benefit of the doubt is to the accused, period. This goes for Clinton, too. But again, you have to hold every single one to the exact, same standard. That means identical coverage, identical tone—scaled to stuff like, say, actual evidence. Meaning that when you have pictures of sexting, it's no longer a he said, she said, it's a simple FACT.
Wiener would still have a job, except he lied about it. Once you look the camera in the eye a few times and tell a whopper, you are toast. Same will be true of Cain if anyone has actual evidence. His resignation was his won choice.
Spitzer was found out because they thought he was taking bribes because of odd expenditures, and caught him on a wire tap. They also thought he used campaign funds for liaisons. Again, real evidence. He resigned likely out of fear more would come out.
Vitter was had his name in the phone list of that DC madam scandal. He apologized with his wife there. Since he didn't make it into a bigger story by trying to run away, he managed to keep his job. It's not like it wasn't covered.