Sharon Bialek accuses Herman Cain of groping her

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

you don't even have to travel very far to see that your claim is bollox

You lived in the US during the Clinton administration, did you? You followed the news?

I don't even remember the names of Clinton's accusers. But there were even lawsuits. The news even reported on clinton being "teflon," here. Women's groups never chimed in to help stamp out sexual harassment, etc.

I'm sure at some point someone in conservative media will do a lexis/nexis search and do story counts on Clinton vs Cain. And Cain is not president, so his coverage should be an order of magnitude lower than it would be for a President to be accused of rape, etc.

Every single time there is a study of the way the US media covers politicians, it shows that they are harder on the right. This is unsurprising given that something like 80% of reporters are self-identified as liberals or democrats. They point to Fox as if that balances everything, but while Fox owns the cable news market, their total viewers is a small fraction of the network news.

The idea that the press gave Clinton a pass on his pre-presidential extracurricular sex life is uncontroversial.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

You lived in the US during the Clinton administration, did you? You followed the news?

I don't even remember the names of Clinton's accusers. But there were even lawsuits. The news even reported on clinton being "teflon," here. Women's groups never chimed in to help stamp out sexual harassment, etc.

I'm sure at some point someone in conservative media will do a lexis/nexis search and do story counts on Clinton vs Cain. And Cain is not president, so his coverage should be an order of magnitude lower than it would be for a President to be accused of rape, etc.

Every single time there is a study of the way the US media covers politicians, it shows that they are harder on the right. This is unsurprising given that something like 80% of reporters are self-identified as liberals or democrats. They point to Fox as if that balances everything, but while Fox owns the cable news market, their total viewers is a small fraction of the network news.

The idea that the press gave Clinton a pass on his pre-presidential extracurricular sex life is uncontroversial.

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.

[tater]

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

It may be true, it may not be true, only he knows for sure. Part of the problem may be generational, since Clinton, Clarence Thomas, Dominic Strauss Kahn, all had the same issue. They grew up in a time when a lot of behavior towards women, which would now be considered to be sexual harassment, was tolerated.

However, the larger issue for republicans is who has a better chance to beat Obama: Cain or Romney. Cain, even if he survives this, will now be carrying some heavy baggage going into the election. Yes, Clinton managed to survive this in 92, but does the GOP want to take a chance in 2012?

Obama and his advisers probably can't believe their good luck. The Republicans have a real shot in 2012, but they seem intent on picking a candidate which Obama has a good chance of beating.

Without story counts, etc, there is no data. I'm interested in actual word counts on stories

Now you sound like Glenn Beck

But why? Why would big media want to sink Cain? Who is behind it?

Just look at the pile of people Cain has blamed, his friends, his associates his employees, his campaigners, his party, his fellow candidates ....but for tater and Beck its obviously the "liberal media"