MSM BIAS:50 Cain stories and only 3 Clinton rape stories

[alan1]

How long ago were the Clinton stories? Around 20 years ago, right?

Irrelevant. The medium may have change, the actions did not.


Experience.


In other words, it's not "news", it's hackery regardless of your opinion.

The truth is that there is a litany of factors that can easily and adequately explain who Cain's current scandals are receiving so much comparative attention, and Clinton's so little. The fact that you automatically cry out about bias demonstrates that you, yourself, are biased.

Your biased opinion does not make it so.

All that just to say "Nu-uh!" That's about all the sophistication of your response.

Yawn

 

[Inthemiddle]

I've been very interested in Cain over the past couple months, and his candidacy bid. I was feeling pretty sure that, at the very least, I could vote for him in a general election. As much as I dislike the fact that this whole thing has distracted attention away from the actual important stuff, I'm having to also admit that perhaps it does demonstrate that Cain is not the right stuff. Because he's handled this whole thing quite badly. For better or worse, a President has to be able to handle the mud slinging in the right way if he wants to maintain any kind of credibility with the public. And I'm sorry to say that it seems that Cain fails on that front.

 

[bodecea]

First, let me just say that the original post is factually inaccurate. Willey accused Clinton of kissing her, and Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her and propositioning her. Neither of these alleged incidents meet either the legal or the common definition of rape.

I'm skeptical of the "Media Research Center"'s methodology, and in particular I'm unsure why next-day network news stories are a good statistic for overall MSM coverage. It's also rather silly to include statistics on coverage of Clinton sexual allegations without including Monica Lewinsky (or for that matter Gennifer Flowers). MRC seems to be deliberately biasing their sample for propaganda effect.

Still, there does seem to be some disparity. However, I doubt much if any of it is due to racism or political bias:

-- Standards for how to cover alleged sexual misconduct have evolved

-- Cain is running for office. Jones story was public in 1994, well before Clinton's reelection campaign was heating up, and the other two stories were made public in Clinton's second term.

-- Clinton had a long history of accusations of sexual misconduct (some surely true, most certainly not), whereas Cain had never previously had any allegations made public.

And most importantly: The accusations against Cain were simply more credible than those against Clinton. Jones held a press conference in which she contradicted published information and accused Clinton of misconduct that she hadn't mentioned for years. Politico, a major news organization, announced in a story with multiple sources that multiple women had made contemporaneous complaints and successfully brought suit for Cain's alleged actions. Even if news organizations were inclined to believe Jones story, it would take them some time to check it out (thereby missing MRC's odd one-day deadline) whereas they could repeat Politico's well-sourced story on its own merits.

Indeed, all of the three women mentioned here had serious credibility issues (see, eg, Wikipedia):

- Jones civil case proved so weak that the judge threw it out in a summary judgment. While this was primarily because Jones failed to show damages, Jones had also damaged her credibility by, for example, being videotaped asking for factual prompts while telling her story.

- Willey repeatedly lied to the FBI

- Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit saying that she had *not* been assaulted. Eventually, she made the claim that Clinton had assaulted her two decades earlier, but she had not made any contemporaneous complaint.

A little O/T but isn't it time for Paula Jones to appear on Dancing With the Stars?

 

[paperview]

I've been very interested in Cain over the past couple months, and his candidacy bid. I was feeling pretty sure that, at the very least, I could vote for him in a general election. As much as I dislike the fact that this whole thing has distracted attention away from the actual important stuff, I'm having to also admit that perhaps it does demonstrate that Cain is not the right stuff. Because he's handled this whole thing quite badly. For better or worse, a President has to be able to handle the mud slinging in the right way if he wants to maintain any kind of credibility with the public. And I'm sorry to say that it seems that Cain fails on that front.

Have you seen this little breakdown (love her or hate her, she has a point) by Maddow on how it really appears he's punk'n everybody.

Seriously.

Give it a listen:

Rachel Maddow Show

 

[paperview]

First, let me just say that the original post is factually inaccurate. Willey accused Clinton of kissing her, and Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her and propositioning her. Neither of these alleged incidents meet either the legal or the common definition of rape.

I'm skeptical of the "Media Research Center"'s methodology, and in particular I'm unsure why next-day network news stories are a good statistic for overall MSM coverage. It's also rather silly to include statistics on coverage of Clinton sexual allegations without including Monica Lewinsky (or for that matter Gennifer Flowers). MRC seems to be deliberately biasing their sample for propaganda effect.

Still, there does seem to be some disparity. However, I doubt much if any of it is due to racism or political bias:

-- Standards for how to cover alleged sexual misconduct have evolved

-- Cain is running for office. Jones story was public in 1994, well before Clinton's reelection campaign was heating up, and the other two stories were made public in Clinton's second term.

-- Clinton had a long history of accusations of sexual misconduct (some surely true, most certainly not), whereas Cain had never previously had any allegations made public.

And most importantly: The accusations against Cain were simply more credible than those against Clinton. Jones held a press conference in which she contradicted published information and accused Clinton of misconduct that she hadn't mentioned for years. Politico, a major news organization, announced in a story with multiple sources that multiple women had made contemporaneous complaints and successfully brought suit for Cain's alleged actions. Even if news organizations were inclined to believe Jones story, it would take them some time to check it out (thereby missing MRC's odd one-day deadline) whereas they could repeat Politico's well-sourced story on its own merits.

Indeed, all of the three women mentioned here had serious credibility issues (see, eg, Wikipedia):

- Jones civil case proved so weak that the judge threw it out in a summary judgment. While this was primarily because Jones failed to show damages, Jones had also damaged her credibility by, for example, being videotaped asking for factual prompts while telling her story.

- Willey repeatedly lied to the FBI

- Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit saying that she had *not* been assaulted. Eventually, she made the claim that Clinton had assaulted her two decades earlier, but she had not made any contemporaneous complaint.

A little O/T but isn't it time for Paula Jones to appear on Dancing With the Stars?

She already spread her legs and showed her ***** for all the world to see. Then she got in the ring with Tonya Harding Isn't that enough.?

This is the woman who came forward because she wanted to "protect her honor."

lol.

 

[bripat9643]

Have you seen this little breakdown (love her or hate her, she has a point) by Maddow on how it really appears he's punk'n everybody.

Seriously.

Give it a listen:

Rachel Maddow Show

Anything Rachel Maddow has to say is simply not credible. She's a leftwing hack.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let’s concede the right’s point, then: the media are bad and awful, they love liberals and hate conservatives, they’re slamming Cain when they gave Clinton a pass.

OK.

Now, again, what does the right want done about it?

Is this just an FYI from the right? Fine. Noted.

But this ‘message’ from the right is nothing new, I’ve been hearing it for over 40 years: ‘liberal media bias.’

And in those 40 years republicans held the WH for all but 12; telling.

The fact is it’s naïve and unrealistic to assume that someone planning on voting for Cain before the ’50 stories’ has now decided to oppose Cain because of the ’50 stories.’ If anything it’s strengthened his resolve as a Cain supporter, it’s a failed tactic as is ‘Obama bashing.’

Whether it’s one story or 50, the fact is it’s out there – the only significant question now is how will Cain handle it. And whining about it now is pointless.

 

[paperview]

Have you seen this little breakdown (love her or hate her, she has a point) by Maddow on how it really appears he's punk'n everybody.

Seriously.

Give it a listen:

Rachel Maddow Show

Anything Rachel Maddow has to say is simply not credible. She's a leftwing hack.

Obviously, she scares the hell out of you.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Clinton Rape of Broaddrick ONLY 3 stories in 3 days...

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

50 Cain anonymous harassment stories in 3 days..

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals

NONE of you racist Cain haters will admit it but the white man Clinton while PRESIDENT had 3 stories! 3 stories of RAPE by a sitting President!

And you say there is no MSM bias???

At least you Cain haters could at least admit the obvious.. the MSM is racist and biased towards white democrat politician!

Hey...Bill Clinton endured eight years of Ken Starr's army investigating every move he made from the time he was a Rhodes scholar overseas until the day he stepped into the oval office. The Democrats walked away when they were preparing to impeach Clinton. You know...after wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money they used illegal means and spying on his personal life and still didn't succeed in removing him from office. I wish to hell he could have served two more terms instead of the TX cowboy that cut taxes for the wealthy, started two wars, doubled the national debt and between him and god almost ruined our country.

 

[bripat9643]

Anything Rachel Maddow has to say is simply not credible. She's a leftwing hack.

Obviously, she scares the hell out of you.

ROFL! Yeah . . . .right.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Let’s concede the right’s point, then: the media are bad and awful, they love liberals and hate conservatives, they’re slamming Cain when they gave Clinton a pass.

We can't do that, because it contradicts themselves. The media is a private capitalist business who provide goods and services based on what their customers want. You don't have a constitutional right to news. If you don't like the news coverage of a given network, nobody is forcing you to watch it.

Also, it's not the media's fault that Cain is in political trouble. The media making money does not take anything away from Cain. It's HIS responsibility to present a good image of himself to voters, not the media's responsibility. If he's failed to do that, he needs to blame himself, not businesses who are the job creators in this country.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Mr. Nick's views on the Occupy protesters:

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr.Nick
a) they're living on public land

Quote: Originally Posted by Mr.Nick
d) they're occupying private property

Hold your breath. Before this ends I have an idea you will consider anything they're doing now to be very mild.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

this is evidence that the MSM only pretends to like black people. they just proved they are racists!

 

[healthmyths]

I guess the MSM gives more respect/weight to anonymous people than it does to people willing to face their scrutiny. More so based upon political party witch hunting.

A Lexis Nexus search shows almost a 1000 hits for Juanita Broderick. Those are news stories bub. Hell, she rode her tear-soaked 60 minutes interview for months...

And that poor poor raped woman never filed charges, did she. Nope.

Face it: Broderick was a proven liar.

End of story.

I can't afford A Lexis Nexus search shows almost a 1000 hits for Juanita Broderick...
but a Google search: "juanita broaddrick raped by Clinton 605 results..
but a Google search: Herman Cain sexual harassment" 1,900,000 results ..

So tell me again.. does a raped by President story justify less the 3/10ths of one percent of the 1,900,000 "anonymous sexual harassment" stories?

Do a Nexus-Lexus of "Herman Cain sexual harassment" and I bet there will be at least 10 times the hits of Broaddrick...

 

[Cammmpbell]

I guess the MSM gives more respect/weight to anonymous people than it does to people willing to face their scrutiny. More so based upon political party witch hunting.

A Lexis Nexus search shows almost a 1000 hits for Juanita Broderick. Those are news stories bub. Hell, she rode her tear-soaked 60 minutes interview for months...

And that poor poor raped woman never filed charges, did she. Nope.

Face it: Broderick was a proven liar.

End of story.

I can't afford A Lexis Nexus search shows almost a 1000 hits for Juanita Broderick...
but a Google search: "juanita broaddrick raped by Clinton 605 results..
but a Google search: Herman Cain sexual harassment" 1,900,000 results ..

So tell me again.. does a raped by President story justify less the 3/10ths of one percent of the 1,900,000 "anonymous sexual harassment" stories?

Do a Nexus-Lexus of "Herman Cain sexual harassment" and I bet there will be at least 10 times the hits of Broaddrick...

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

Monica Lewinsky had already had an extensive affair with a married man. Hell...Hillary was strong enough to live with it...why can't you?

Republicans preach family values and appear to be above the frey but you know what? Just as many of them are caught dillying their dally as anybody else. Yes sports fans...they are animals too.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

if michelle obama took a crap in the woods, and it didnt make a sound, the MSM would still be all over the Herman Cain scandal. if a meteor hit the atlantic ocean, same day as the scandal broke out,,,MSNBC would be all over herman cain,,with the attitude "Meteor? what Meteor? "

 

[Cammmpbell]

if michelle obama took a crap in the woods, and it didnt make a sound, the MSM would still be all over the Herman Cain scandal. if a meteor hit the atlantic ocean, same day as the scandal broke out,,,MSNBC would be all over herman cain,,with the attitude "Meteor? what Meteor? "

You want news go a news channel...you want political support go to FOX or MSNBC

 

[healthmyths]

First, let me just say that the original post is factually inaccurate. Willey accused Clinton of kissing her, and Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her and propositioning her. Neither of these alleged incidents meet either the legal or the common definition of rape.

I'm skeptical of the "Media Research Center"'s methodology, and in particular I'm unsure why next-day network news stories are a good statistic for overall MSM coverage. It's also rather silly to include statistics on coverage of Clinton sexual allegations without including Monica Lewinsky (or for that matter Gennifer Flowers). MRC seems to be deliberately biasing their sample for propaganda effect.

Still, there does seem to be some disparity. However, I doubt much if any of it is due to racism or political bias:

-- Standards for how to cover alleged sexual misconduct have evolved

-- Cain is running for office. Jones story was public in 1994, well before Clinton's reelection campaign was heating up, and the other two stories were made public in Clinton's second term.

-- Clinton had a long history of accusations of sexual misconduct (some surely true, most certainly not), whereas Cain had never previously had any allegations made public.

And most importantly: The accusations against Cain were simply more credible than those against Clinton. Jones held a press conference in which she contradicted published information and accused Clinton of misconduct that she hadn't mentioned for years. Politico, a major news organization, announced in a story with multiple sources that multiple women had made contemporaneous complaints and successfully brought suit for Cain's alleged actions. Even if news organizations were inclined to believe Jones story, it would take them some time to check it out (thereby missing MRC's odd one-day deadline) whereas they could repeat Politico's well-sourced story on its own merits.

Indeed, all of the three women mentioned here had serious credibility issues (see, eg, Wikipedia):

- Jones civil case proved so weak that the judge threw it out in a summary judgment. While this was primarily because Jones failed to show damages, Jones had also damaged her credibility by, for example, being videotaped asking for factual prompts while telling her story.

- Willey repeatedly lied to the FBI

- Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit saying that she had *not* been assaulted. Eventually, she made the claim that Clinton had assaulted her two decades earlier, but she had not made any contemporaneous complaint.

A little O/T but isn't it time for Paula Jones to appear on Dancing With the Stars?

And so 3 "anonymous" women who supposedly were offended.. again NOT attacked, not raped.. not bruised...OFFENDED... they deserve 6,000 times more press coverage then the sitting president accused of RaPE???

People like you I truly believe if told by their leader to drink kool aid that is poison would do it...WAIT are you a Jim Jones survivor?

It is truly amazing how you will excuse every flagrant action of Edwards, Clinton, Kennedys, because the MSM will NOT cover with the same intensity as they do to a non-liberal!

Just another really good example of brain washing!

 

[Big Black Dog]

Clinton isn't Republican and he isn't running for President. That's why he gets the break from the liberal media.

 

[Trajan]

MRC seems to be deliberately biasing their sample for propaganda effect.

MRC is Brent Bozell's baby. He also runs CNS News. Right wing Propaganda on steroids. Anyone familiar with Bozell's history knows what a shill he is.

I've been following him for well over a decade. Skunk extraordinaire.

A little background:

"He and the organizations that he foundes reap millions in PR money annually by selling the political carcinogens of extremist Right billionaires wrapped in the flag, mom, and apple pie. It’s the political Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man trying to put one past the American people.

Bozell, a second generation Right-wing reactionary following in his father Jr.’s footsteps, is a nephew of the late William F. Buckley and the grandson of advertising/PR agency magnate Leo Bozell. He one of many of the Christian media Don Quixotes marching off to joust with their big windmill: Liberal America.

More: (Good article) :: Dissecting Right Wing Political Extremism «

Best moments in televison wingnut history is when he is on C-Span's Washington Journal and figgits in his chair like a 5 year old chocolate stained toddler when people call in with his lies and idiocy and he has no place to Foxrun. Hilarity!

yes we know his background, please present the search parameters for and the scanned results page for that lexus search please.........thx in advance....