Over the past week or so, I have been thinking about a number of different topics. All of which, I hope to make some reasoned comments on over the coming days and weeks. However, one topic above all has catapulted right to the top of my list. Sensationalism in the media. If the media was out of control before and they were. Then, I don't know what they are now. When the likes of The National Enquirer are making the news channel circuit, we are in serious trouble. John Edwards extramarital affair is not and should not be headline news. I'm not a John Edwards defender and I certainly don't defend adultery. But, what John Edwards or anyone other quazi-celebrity does in there private life is not a concern of mine. Now, I expect this kind of coverage from The National Enquirer and Star and magazines of that ilk. However, I think that MSNBC, Fox News, CNN and the other "legitimate" news networks have more pertinent issues to cover, than the extramarital affairs of a former senator, vice-presidential candidate and presidential hopeful.
If they need a news story.. why don't they get behind the Flatulent Fuzz for President hype!
Flatulent Fuzz
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one...
First of all, politicians, by virtue of being politicians, basically waive their right to a private life so long as they're pursuing a career in politics. They all know this and attempt to exploit the deprivation to their political advantage, and yet, when they get caught with their pants down, so to speak, they and their cronies start crying that it's a "private" matter. C'mon.
Bill Clinton's "even Presidents have private lives" line is one of the most ridiculous lame defenses I ever heard for a severe case of a lack of self-restraint. But that so many people bought into it, climbing onto the "even presidents have private lives" bandwagon, is the more disturbing fact to my mind.
If any of us, including Mr. Edwards, were superhuman and had the ability to somehow completely separate our personal "private" selves and actions from our public selves and actions, then I might agree with you that this matter with Mr. Edwards should be left alone by the media. But again, we're talking about an inability to restrain oneself; a case of marital infidelity (in which apparently he fathered a child), which is to say in political terms, an act of "treason" committed against the man's own family, and an attempt, as is generally the case with such as this, to cover it up. How can such a person be trusted with the kind of power and responsibility that a mayor of Dallas, Tx. possesses, much less a President of the United States?
However, the fact is that he holds no political office. If he is holding a political office, then I have no problem with the coverage. I don't care that he has, in the past, held office. I am talking today.
If he was the president or vice president, then it would absolutely be a headline news event. If he's a U.S. Senator from North Carolina, then it is newsworthy. Although, it is still not headline news. Headline news is when a candidate follows through on a promise made while campaigning. A campaign promise fulfilled is unheard of. Adultery, however, is running rampant across the country side (which by no means excuses him or adultery).
Okay, this is possibly a post I want to link to at my blog.
We have a huge difference of opinion here. But I want to be sure what the basis is for our differences. Are you saying that Edwards -- a man that was having a sexual affair with a photographer connected to his presidential campaign -- is off limits "media-wise" since he currently holds no political office?
Let me clarify my question in the previous post a bit...
It's well established that Edwards's indiscretions with this woman took place in the midst of his presidential campaign. Also, because he currently holds no political post does not mean he's not a political figure with a political agenda he's trying to push. And I'm assuming that he has future political aspirations, like, say, another run at the Presidency (or maybe a post in an Obama administration?). All of which makes him fair game in my opinion.
If he wants to back off completely from politics, and cease to use his influence to affect political policy, and remove himself from consideration for any future political post under the U.S. -- and he can hold to that for any extended period of time -- then I'll cautiously begin to move to your side of the issue.
I don't see that happening, do you?
What I am trying to say, above all, is that there is a great deal of sensationalism, where the media is concerned. Edward's just happened to be in the news, at the time I was formulating my thoughts about this subject. So, let's not just make this about John Edward's solely.
In answer to your questions... I am not saying that John Edwards is off-limits. In my view, he doesn't garner headline news. Newsworthy? Yes. The lead story in every available news medium for days on end? No.
Let me ask you something, respectfully:
Why would you say to me after all that I've posted on the subject here "let's not make this just about Edwards solely?"
What have I written in this thread that would convince you that I'm trying to make this about Edwards and only about Edwards? Doesn't the body of my first comment to this thread thoroughly dispense of that idea; am I not, in that post, applying the principle across the board insofar as politicians and pubic figures are concerned?
This is your blog, and I respect your authority here in dictating the terms of the discussion. But again, what have I said in this discussion that impresses upon you that I'm trying to make it about John Edwards solely?
I don't understand the basis of your statement.
Your last two comments were about Edward's specifically. What I was trying to avoid was vearing too far off of the subject of my original post.
From re-reading your original post, I see that you are making your comments universally. My mistake, for not going back and looking over your original comments, to refresh my mind of what you had already written. Something, I should keep in mind in the future.
Some days I think that hyping this sort of thing is just a way to convince people that there are no public officials that can be trusted so we should just stop looking for evidence of good character.
Or maybe I'm just having a bad day.
In my view, we all make mistakes. Now, that doesn't mean that we should get a free pass. However, I don't think that we need to be crucified either. With the media, a story is feast or famine. They act as if one of the worst crimes in history has been committed. That is, until the next big story comes along. A story should be able to be told objectively. There's no need to make it more than it is.
Bottom line... the media are out of control.
Oh.. and nice to see you Mom..
Post a Comment