The modern liberal press, described in one paragraph

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The modern liberal press, described in one paragraph:

“I call them ‘dumb arses,’” she said. “They think by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview — that’s old news and it does feature this disgruntled ex- that claimed that it would destroy a campaign. All this does is, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction because it’s played so selectively by the media.” [emphasis mine]

It isn’t that the accusations against Newt Gingrich shouldn’t be looked at, it’s that the press is only interested in accusations like this against Republican and conservative candidates. Where were they while John Edwards was simultaneously having an adulterous affair and running for President, even as his wife was dying of cancer? Similarly, the mainstream press didn’t think Anthony Weiner’s sexual exploits were worth coverage, even though those exploits ended up destroying his career. And of course, there is Bill Clinton’s history, which for the liberal press, was irrelevant because it was “his personal life.”

But when it comes to Republicans, all bets are off.

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mind the press going after politicians like this at all. What I mind is, as Palin notes, the selective manner in which the press goes after politicians. Their partisanship in favor of Democrats has become so obvious it is disgraceful. They should be ashamed.



  • jwing

    It’s beyond disgraceful…it is unethical, unprofessional and slanderous.

  • i think the media’s main goal is to make money like other businesses . they select stories that sell . so maybe the real question is why do people buy this bs? but I’m also a news fiend I like to watch 3 different broadcasts to compare the differences bewteen what stories they choose to cover

  • Jim

    I would agree that each side thinks its own infidelities are less serious than the other side’s, but to suggest that these infidelities by Democrats are not covered by the mainstream press is ridiculous.
    Do a simple search of just the NYTimes on the affairs of Edwards, Clinton, and Weiner, and you see many many articles. And that is just the Times. The news lead with Clinton/Lewinski for months. And Weiner was the main topic to the point of boredom.
    If it was OK for FOX to interview Jennifer Flowers, its OK for ABC to interview one of Gingrich’s ex-wives. And by the way, the rest of the media interviewed Flowers too.
    But for me, I could care less about any of this reporting. I wish it all would go away, including questions about Gingrich’s marriages. But if you care about that kind of thing in your politicians, don’t complain when one on your side is questioned about his own infidelities. And at the end of the day, he did engage in an infidelity.

  • max james

    You are correct in that these stories were covered. However they were first ignored , then defended as irrevelent , then somehow private or justified , then covered when it became obvious they were doing all the above. IMO

  • wjamny

    While I somewhat agree that some people get off the hook easier, the conservatives usually get the worst of it because of their ‘holier than thou’ attitudes and by preaching to everyone on how they should live and attacking the values of those that don’t agree with their point of view. Eventually it comes out that these people are having affairs, gay lovers, or other things in contrast to their public personas, and that’s why the attacks come so hard and frequently.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *