LA Times Proves It’s Blatant Bias For Democrats

Had a very interesting story come out Friday, July 25th.

There’s little “apparently” about it: The National Enquirer has run stories that John Edwards had a “love child” with a woman named Rielle Hunter. The story begins:

Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.

The married ex-senator from North Carolina – whose wife Elizabeth continues to battle cancer — met with his mistress, blonde divorcée Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night, July 21 – and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER was there! He didn’t leave until early the next morning.

Rielle had driven to Los Angeles from Santa Barbara with a male friend for the rendezvous with Edwards. The former senator attended a press event Monday afternoon with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on the topic of how to combat homelessness.

But a months-long NATIONAL ENQUIRER investigation had yielded information that Rielle and Edwards, 54, had arranged to secretly meet afterward and for the ex-senator to spend some time with both his mistress and the love child who he refuses to publicly acknowledge as his own.

And the details are pretty well confirmed by FoxNews.

John Edwards was in Los Angeles to do one of his poverty events, and the Enquirer discovered that Rielle Hunter had a room at the Beverly Hilton. Believing that John Edwards – whom their sources claimed was the father of Hunter’s child in December 2007 story – would show up, an Enquirer team obtained a room and laid in wait for the former Senator.

Sure enough he showed up. And when the Enquirer reporters began to photograph him and ask him questions at 2:40 A.M., Edwards – who did not have a room at the hotel he was in at nearly 3 A.M. – ran into a bathroom and called security.

So let’s just come out and acknowledge the plain fact: John Edwards is a philandering lech who had a long-time sexual affair even as his wife is possibly dying of cancer.

Okay. For many who have long-since come to believe that John Edwards was a scumbag par excellance, this isn’t so much news as it is confirmation of what they already thought.

Here’s where the story really gets interesting. The Los Angeles Times is caught red-handed trying to suppress the story:

LAT Gags Blogs: In a move that has apparently stirred up some internal discontent, the Los Angeles Times has banned its bloggers, including political bloggers, from mentioning the Edwards/Rielle Hunter story. Even bloggers who want to mention the story in order to make a skeptical we-don’t-trust-the-Enquirer point are forbidden from doing so. Kausfiles has obtained a copy of the email Times bloggers received from editor Tony Pierce. [I’ve excised the recipient list and omitted Pierce’s email address]:

From: “Pierce, Tony”

Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT

To: [XXX]

Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don’t hesitate to ask

Keep rockin,

Tony

That will certainly calm paranoia about the Mainstream Media (MSM) suppressing the Edwards scandal. …

P.S.: Is the Times’ edict a) part of a double-standard that favors Democrats (and disfavors Republicans like Rep. Vito Fossella and John McCain)? Or does it b) simply reflect an outmoded Gatekeeper Model of journalism in which not informing readers of certain sensitive allegations is as important as informing them–as if readers are too simple-minded to weigh charges that are not proven, as if they aren’t going to find out about such controversies anyway? I’d say it’s a mixture of both (a) and (b). This was a sensational scandal the LAT and other MSM papers passionately did not want to uncover when Edwards was a formal candidate, and now that the Enquirer seems to have done the job for them it looks like they want everyone to shut up while they fail to uncover it again. …

P.P.S.: The Times apparently failed to get word of the ban to one of its bloggers in time to prevent her from shocking readers by saying she hoped the allegations against Edwards weren’t true. … 2:55 A.M. link

Another link to the cover-up story.

There are so many reasons to know that the media is WAY, WAY, WAAAAAYYY in the tank for Democrats.

You can add that to the massive media entourage – including all three elite network anchors – that accompanied Barack Obama on his foreign trip.

You remember the “wide-stance” airport bathroom arrest of Republican Senator Larry Craig? The media were all over that story after it surfaced, and had been trying to get dirt on him for months. Though he ultimately refused to resign, the constant media attention destroyed his career, and he is not running for re-election.

You remember the media frenzy over the Repulbican Representative Mark Foley scandal in Florida? It may have been the straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back moment for Republicans in the 2006 elections. The media couldn’t get enough of that one. And as much as they covered the scandal, they misrepresented it to make it sound worse than it actually was. One had to work to learn the truth that the media didn’t reveal: that Foley was not molesting boys, but rather forming friendships with congressional pages, and then contacting them with sexual advances AFTER they were of legal age. He did not solicit sex with any active page.  He has never been arrested for his conduct since his resignation.

Neither of these men had anywhere NEAR the public profile of two-time Democratic candidate for president and 2004 vice-presidential candidate Edwards.  But it didn’t matter to a media that was out to destroy Republicans and influence elections.  The media ignored the Edwards “love-child” story for months and months when they went after Republicans with zeal.

Now, I don’t mind one bit that the media exposed guys like Craig and Foley. What they did – legal or not – was wrong, and they should have been exposed.

What bothers me is the constant double-standard of a media that represents itself as being objective while it is clearly in the tank for liberals and Democrats.

On story after story, issue after issue, the media reveals its bias. It reveals it in the stories it covers, the stories that it refuses to cover, the people it interviews or refuses to interview for a given story, and the angle or topic of a story that is covered versus other possible angles. They do it all the time, unrelentingly.

Many liberals believe as they do because they have been made stupid by a media that routinely distorts the truth and misrepresents the facts. They cannot understand reality because they are constantly presented with a lie.

As much of a story as two-time Democrat candidate for president John Edward’s infidelity is, the real story is the bias of the media in refusing to fairly and objectively cover a story that would negatively effect Democrats.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “LA Times Proves It’s Blatant Bias For Democrats”

  1. NYSoxfan Says:

    wake up and smell the coffee… every media outlet in the world is biased one way or the other. FoxNews isn’t blatantly pro-GOP and constantly parroting Republican talking points? Give me a break. And what about the NY Post and all those UK rags that Rupert Murdoch owns? And Richard Mellon Scaife? And Lord Thomson? etc, etc…. these men are not former hippies with a liberal bias. Get over it. Screaming ‘bias’ is like blaming the friggin umpires every time your team loses a close game. This is not the Republicans’ year because of the outright corruption of the Congress run by Tom DeLay (indicted) and Big Denny Hastert (resigned) and all their buddies; not to mention the Bush/Cheney cabal’s eight years of reckless foreign policy, domestic mismanagement and outright cronyism. Just because FoxNews doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. And much of what they do talk about? Terrorist fistjabs?

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    But Fox News really ISN’T in the tank. The very reason you think they are is because that’s the opinion the elite media gave you. Fox News stands out in its CONTRAST to media outlets that are totally pro-liberal.

    And even if Fox News WERE biased (see below for refutation), it would be ONE conservative outlet against HOW MANY liberal outlets? And the three elite network stations that sent their anchors with Obama – while patently ignoring THREE similar McCain foreign visits – have a unique access to the public airwaves and therefore a greater duty to be objective. They have failed in that duty.

    An independent study demonstrated how much more fair and balanced Fox News is than its rivals.
    http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf (and more links to the study are available at):
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/12/27/study-fox-most-fair-balanced-thus-far-prez-campaign

    Hilllary Clinton’s campaign publicly acknowledged that Fox News had been by far the most fair in its coverage of her while the rest of the media was in the tank for Obama.
    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hillary_Admits_Fox_News_I/2008/02/12/72050.html

    And then there’s this story available at:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391494,00.html

    “An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money contributed during this election cycle by journalists favors Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 15 to one.

    Investor’s Business Daily reports 235 journalists have donated more than $225,000 to Democrats and just 20 journalists have given around $16,000 to Republicans.

    An even greater disparity — 20 to one — exists between the number of journalists who have donated to Barack Obama over John McCain.

    Individuals who are employed by major media organizations have given more than $315,000 to Democrats and about $23,000 to Republicans.”

    How do you explain this?

    Explain to me why all three anchors and 200 journalists covered Obama and ignored McCain, even though they are virtually even in the polls.

    You are a joke, NYSoxfan, because you are so obviously wrong, but are so ideologically committed that you are unable to see how ridiculous your thinking is. You are exactly the sort of person I describe in my conclusion above.

    Fox News attempts to present both sides of a story. I have heard liberals literally ridicule this very notion because – to them – it’s like (their words) ‘presenting both sides of the debate over whether the earth is round or flat.’ They have so completely bought in to liberal premises that even TRYING to cover both sides is irrational and biased.

  3. Cornocopia Says:

    I get all my news from comedy sources like the Daily Show and http://www.bofads.com nowadays because the national media is so slanted. Then again, I think it is hard to say that the bias towards liberals when there is Fox News out there.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m glad you recognize that the “slant” is there. As for Fox News…

    1) It is the biggest thing in cable (dwarfing MSNBC and CNN), but there’s a structural unfairness regarding ABC, NBC, CBS because they are available to every viewer in the country, and because they have decades of a “head start” to develop their brand. The government literally allows them the use of public airwaves, something Fox doesn’t have.

    2) When you think of all the other news out there (for ex, you can add government-funded PBS and the ultra-biased Jim Lehrer), there are so many stations out there with a liberal bias, that Fox News is literally a drop in the bucket. Add to that the Associated Press, the New York Times, etc and the bias on the left is simply overwhelming.

    3) Fox News truly does have balance in its news. Realize that Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are NOT journalists, and do not pretend to be. But Fox takes pride in inviting both liberal and conservative guests on its news programs. The liberal networks don’t give ANY time to conservatives.

    Thanks for your comment!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: