The New York Times reported this morning that eight years ago John McCain’s staff became concerned that his relationship with a female lobbyist was becoming romantic so they took steps to stop it.
Both McCain and the lobbyist have denied any such relationship. On Fox News this morning, Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager at the time said the story is totally false. Carl Cameron at Fox News said that Fox investigated the story at the time and could find no one, on or off the record, who could back up the reports.
On the other hand, a search of the New York Times archive for Larry Sinclair produced no articles at all. Larry Sinclair is the man who says he took drugs and had sex with Barack Obama about eight years ago and is now going to court to fight harassment by Obama’s staff.
So the New York Times finds it newsworthy to report anonymous sources alleging suspicions of third parties regarding a possible relationship between McCain and a lobbyist which both parties deny. But they neglect to report actual allegations by someone who says he personally had sex and took drugs with Obama, even though Obama has had a past history of drug abuse and the matter is going to court!
Don't tell me there's no left-wing bias at the New York Times! Either investigate both stories or ignore both stories but don't report one and ignore the other.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Great point. Left wing media bias is so obvious one has to totally lack discernment and logical reasoning to miss it.........
Come on now Doc, expecting the NY Times to be impartial is like dangling chicken over a half-starved lion and expecting it not to jump at it. The NY Times hasn't been impartial for a long, long, long time. People who buy it are looking for its left wing viewpoint.
Right wing media bias is so obvious too. Anyone watch Fox News?
I like the fact that we have a variety of news outlets, even if they are biased, because then we can contrast them all with each other and hopefully come up with something close to the truth :)
I'll actually agree with you on one aspect of this: these allegations against McCain do seem flimsy, at least from what I've heard so far. But it's not just a straight "sex scandal" - the allegation isn't just an affair, but preferential treatment for a lobbyist who had business before Congress. That's what could make this damaging in my eyes, anyway. But for now I give McCain the benefit of the doubt. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but I do respect him as a person.
Brent makes a great point - IF McCain was involved in that, it needs to come out. It'd show McCain to be a real scumbag. The rub is - all the people involved in the situation claim its untrue. So where is the evidence?
This reminds me, in miniture, of some Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings a while back.
Post a Comment