Bozell Slams Media Double Standard: Shielding Clinton, Pouncing on Cain
Editor's Note: In direct contrast to how ABC, CBS and NBC newsrooms all but ignored the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton from multiple women including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, the same networks are now salivating over an alleged act of harassment by Herman Cain from anonymous sources. NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell made the following statement about this media double standard earlier today:
ABC, CBS and NBC pounced on the opportunity to slam GOP hopeful Herman Cain - even with unnamed accusers and sources. It is indefensible how the networks were quick to defend Bill Clinton by not reporting public accusations of rape, inappropriate physical contact, and explicit behavior – and are quick to attack Herman Cain on the basis of unspecified allegations by anonymous sources.
While these women received a different kind of "Clinton Treatment," the media have their own version, and are quick to put it aside when it comes to Herman Cain. They want to see this smart, successful, black man come to ruin – all because he is a conservative.
A disgraceful President who faced public accusers and an impeachment trial received better treatment in the so-called "news" than a candidate whose accusers remain unnamed.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
contrast
Submitted by spepper on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 3:51pm.
In contrast, the usual and suspect media went after the ACCUSERS of Clinton, instead of Clinton himself (remember Carville's "drag money through a trailer park"?) -- and this time, because Cain is a Republican and conservative candidate, the UASM are going after HIM instead his ACCUSERS-- doesn't matter to the UASM this time that the accusations were proven to be BASELESS.
I want someone to accuse
Submitted by rwesley2.0 on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 4:21pm.
I want someone to accuse these networks of racism just to see them squirm. (Not that they would)
At the same time they are praising Willy Jeff...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 4:30pm.
for "his" great economics policy. Just don't bring up the dot-com bubble or the fact that it was a Republican Newt Gingrich led House that balanced the budget.
dot com bubble...
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 5:16pm.
That was a Wall Street thing. Bubbles! Look at the pretty bubbles- pop pop pop.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Why the support for Cain?
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 5:14pm.
Cain is radioactive and his hair is on fire. His comments have been ridiculous.
He doesn't know anything yet comments on knowing something.
Time to move along and stop watching this train wreck.
Mitt is holding his own...what about Ron Paul...Perry?
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
the way the LSM
Submitted by grammajane on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 8:56pm.
fawns over and praises the slimiest pres this country ever elected, says quite a bit about the morals of liberals, in general.
Clinton lied to a grand jury,
Submitted by Jerry on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 9:23pm.
Clinton lied to a grand jury, lied to a federal judge, lied to Congress, and lied to the American people, just to try and beat a sexual harassment lawsuit and deny a lowly clerk (Paula Jones) her right to due process in a court of law. A suit he later settled out of court for almost a million dollars.
Clinton took sexual advantage of a star struck teenage intern (Monica Lewinsky) who was entrusted to his employ, and at the same time, caused a huge uptick in oral sex and oral STD's amongst the teenage population... for after all, oral sex isn't sex, or IS it?
Clinton groped a life-long supporter and campaign worker (Kathleen Wiley) who was seeking employment to compensate for the recent loss of her spouse, leading head femi-nazi Gloria Steinem to pronounce a "one grope" pass rule.
Clinton RAPED Juanita Broderick... a charge that was never denied by Mr. Clinton.
The stories were ignored, silenced, downplayed, and/or defended.
The women were investigated, ridiculed, tarnished, and trashed.
The perpetrator was hailed, lauded, and proclaimed as the "best president ever" - Helen Thomas.
Just ONE of these SCANDALS, would be enough to tar and feather ANY person with an (R) by their name, relegating them for all eternity to the trash bin of shame. Throw in the campaign cash scandals, technology transfer scandals, Elian Gonzales, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Whitewater, and a slew of mysterious deaths of people who were getting ready to testify or knew too much, and it's enough to sink the Bismark, Titanic, and entire 7th fleet with ease. It just illustrates how absolutely hypocritical and biased the MSM (D) is.
The Clinton scandals...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:49am.
Clinton did what tens of millions of spouses have done throughout the course of recorded history: He attempted to conceal an extra-marital affair with a young woman--a dalliance that had ended months earlier. As everyone knows, Clinton and Lewinsky had engaged in consensual oral sex on several occasions. His conduct was reckless, inexcusable and immoral. His efforts to prevent its disclosure prompted false public denials and misleading, deceptive, incomplete, and equivocal testimony at a deposition and later before a grand jury.
The plaintiff's reasons for filing suit were laughable, her backers a coterie of conservative activists motivated not in the least by a desire to secure justice for the plaintiff but rather to humiliate and inflict political damage on a president they despised. The "lowly clerk's" cause of action was so thoroughly devoid of legal merit that the Judge tossed it out via summary judgment--meaning it wasn't even worthy of presentation to a jury. [Nevertheless, Clinton offered to pay Jones every penny she had sought in the lawsuit, but she, as her advisers urged, rejected it. Again, the overriding objective was not monetary compensation, but to cripple or destroy the presidency of Bill Clinton.]
After information was fed to the plaintiff's attorneys regarding the Lewinsky relationship--the details of which had been [very likely] illegally recorded by Linda Tripp [who was later granted immunity], a perjury trap was set to ensnare Clinton. Because of the particular framing of the questions--and the definitions provided by the attorney conducting the deposition--Clinton believed he could finesse his testimony so that he could be technically "truthful" without admitting to his involvement with Lewinsky. It was like trying to thread a needle with a rope. But perjury? That's highly debatable. It requires false statements under oath about a material issue. It is certainly arguable that Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky was in no way germane to Jones' claim of sexual harassment. And of course that also extends to his grand jury testimony. Nevertheless, the charges of false swearing, contempt of court, obstruction of justice were well-grounded.
The 'star struck intern meme' is sheer nonsense. Lewinsky was no innocent ingenue` seduced by Clinton. She was smart and sophisticated. She knew exactly what she was doing. She flashed her thong underwear. Clinton was weak and reckless.
Kathleen Willey's credibility was devastatingly suspect. Even Tripp dismissed her accounts of the alleged incidents of groping. If Willey's claims had been sustainable, there would have been no hesitation on the part of the OIC to pursue them. That they did not speaks volumes.
It is asserted that Clinton never denied raping Juanita Broderick. Where did you come up with that bit of nonsense? Not only had Clinton denied it, but Juanita Broderick herself had denied it repeatedly--even swore to the denial in an affidavit- before finally changing her story and commencing the talk show tour many years after the alleged incident took place.
The stories were not ignored, silenced, downplayed, or defended. They were the subject of some of the most extensive reporting and relentless and pervasive coverage in the history of investigative journalism. In fact, I recall a reporter suggesting the reason Gringrich's infidelity was ignored was because of the intense scrutiny devoted to the Clinton scandals. It left little time to chase down rumors about possible philandering by the House Speaker.
There were indeed some regrettable remarks made--about Jones in particular. The trailer trash quip by Carville was shameful and indefensible. But Paula didn't exactly enhance her reputation with her subsequent nude photo shoot for Playboy. As far as investigation of parties, that's part of the process. Both plaintiff's counsel and the defense counsel would be remiss if such investigations were not performed.
What Clinton did was wrong, and he paid a serious price. Virtually no one condoned or justified his behavior, but many believed that impeachment was overreaching. He had offered to accept a censure from Congress--and that would have been eminently appropriate--but the Republicans wanted his head on a platter. Public opprobrium, loss of his law license, substantial fines, a huge pay out to Jones, the ignominy of being one of only two presidents impeached--it cannot be reasonably suggested that he got off scot free.
In closing, your compilation of Clinton scandals is seriously flawed. A couple of the examples are worth your referencing. The rest is baseless mythology which have become staples of right-wing lore. And, for pete's sake, Ruby Ridge happened in George H. W. Bush's administration--not Clinton's.
Jer
Clinton Destroyed the Credibility of the "Women's" Movement
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:21am.
The failure to condemn Willie Sleeze for his behavior utterly destroyed the credibility of Gloria Steinhem, Kate Michelman and the rest of those who argued that powerful men were always wrong when they messed with subordinate women...
THANK YOU, Slick Willie!!!
Liberal troll trolls
Submitted by Marcus Porcius on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 5:22pm.
Please don't feed the troll.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
www.theconservativereview.com
Look Porcius...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 8:54pm.
If you are interested in challenging my facts and opinions and engaging in a productive dialogue or a passionate debate with me concerning the subject, I am, as always, more than willing. But, your asinine troll slam is absolutely laughable and is far more indicative of trollish behavior than is my comment.
Jer
Phew
Submitted by Pizza Dude on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 5:36pm.
I'm glad at least one person still remembers the coverage of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. Just about every conservative I've come across seems to believe the coverage was nothing more than a tease during Good Morning South Dakota.
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 9:26pm.
Not to in any way condone the posing for Playboy, but I don't see how Jones's doing that should make her less believable. At least in comparison to an unfaithful womanizer.
And I think your portrayal of Lewinsky and Clinton is somewhat flawed. I don't see Lewinsky as a smart and sophisticated woman who preyed on Clinton's weakness. The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle. They were both flirts who enjoyed sexual dalliances. Neither of them has much or a moral compass since they were both willing to ignore the existence of HRC. But Lewinsky wasn't POTUS.
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 9:52pm.
I didn't claim it affected Jones' believability, only that it didn't particularly enhance her reputation. Do you not agree? The fact is, even if one assumes everything she said is true, she still had no case. It was all politics.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:03pm.
Sorry to misinterpret what you wrote. Reputation? In today's world it depends on where you sit. For me personally, it diminishes when someone sheds their clothes for money, but for others...
As far as her case, it seems that if Clinton said anything that made her feel uncomfortable AT ALL she would have a case.
As with many things, the whole sexual harassment laws are well intentioned, but seems to have become contorted so badly that it can be difficult to say what is and isn't sexual harassment (besides the obvious words).
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:06pm.
The incident with Clinton had occurred three years prior to her filing the suit immediately before the statute of limitations expired. My recollection is that she was unable to show any harm suffered or discriminatory treatment or hostile working environment or damages of any kind other than the failure to receive flowers on 'secretary appreciation' day.
Here are some of her recent thoughts on the episode:
Jones does have one regret about her role in the Clinton Impeachment saga, however. She claims she was used as a political pawn by conservatives out to get Clinton, charging that they pressured her to reject the first settlement offer. "I hate the fact that people thought it was political," Jones tells TIME. "It was their agenda to make it [seem] like I was trying to bring down the President. They let political views bog their mind of what really happened.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1870544_18705... #ixzz1cbkbQtdZ
Jer
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:19pm.
Time - the worlds most reliable source for democrat propaganda
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good evening, cocodrie....
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:24pm.
Do you believe Time magazine made up the Jones quotes?
Also, to what purpose do you attribute the NYT anti-Clinton editorials?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:56pm.
It's because of the slanted way articles are written, things out of context, and sometimes use of information they know is inaccurate because they can say they are quoting it from another source. I have personal experience with one of their intentionally misleading articles in '60 or '61 maligning the Louisiana Air National Guard.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:32pm.
Perjury trap?Did they hold him down and tickle him till he promised to perjure himself?I do like reading fiction thanks.Your speculations don't equal facts.
I'm sorry, well99...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 12:41am.
I didn't realize you were an authority on the legal ramifications of the perjury trap and its application as an affirmative defense. I look forward to your amplification. And to a few more chuckles like I the ones I had after reading your comment above. By the way, I suspect you have a few hours of research ahead of you, so you better get started. You may submit your findings tomorrow.
Best wishes,
Jer
Okay, 99...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:06am.
I'm letting you off the hook, but only because I like you.
Whether or not Clinton was the target and victim of a "perjury trap" in the strict legal sense is highly debatable. But at the very least the tactics employed by the Jones lawyers--and to a lesser extent by Starr--were essentially similar to one. They were surreptitiously given highly sensitive, extremely embarrassing and very personal information which was only tangentially related to their client's case which they then used to frame surprise questions to be sprung on Clinton and designed to place him in an untenable position while facing a Hobson's choice: Either admit to and provide details about a past inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky--and hurt and humiliate himself and his family, perhaps even destroy his marriage--or flatly deny it [perjury at worst, false testimony under oath and obstruction of justice at best], or attempt to finesse the issue with "technically truthful" answers while avoiding damaging admissions. He chose the latter course.
In any event, the Jones attorneys were pursuing a painfully weak yet highly politicized cause of action and executing a squeeze play against the President for dubious purposes. It was fancy lawyering and legally permissible. It was also an ambush and somewhat unseemly. The whole sorry saga of Jones/Clinton/Lewinsky was a colossal and pointless farce.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:37pm.
"Either admit to and provide details about a past inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky--and hurt and humiliate himself and his family, perhaps even destroy his marriage--or flatly deny it [perjury at worst, false testimony under oath and obstruction of justice at best], or attempt to finesse the issue with "technically truthful" answers while avoiding damaging admissions. He chose the latter course."
Ahh victim card Jer?Jer no one forced Clinton to have sex with Monica.I know taking responsibility for ones actions is old school and must be avoided at all cost.Still bottom line is there will always be consequences to ones actions.Bill brought it on himself.No one else.Slick Willie wasn't beyond fancy lawyering himself.What is goose is good for the gander.Just a note:Don't get sentimental on me.I had to take a nitro when I saw that.To reiterate Congrats on the Cards and their great season.Kudos.
all hail Clinton
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 3:44pm.
The most innocent and persecuted man in the history of the slavery supporting, evil history of the US. No wonder he was the first Black president because only slaves would understand that level of societal persecution.
Sorry - legalize and Clinton praise bring out the sarcasm - I'm an addict and I need help.
Agnostic
Submitted by well99 on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 4:05pm.
Nicely put..lol
I'm curious, Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 7:17pm.
Which part of my original "all hail Clinton" post do you believe represents my most lavish praise for the ex-President?
--labeling his conduct inexcusable and immoral
--noting his false public denials
--calling his testimony deceptive, misleading, and equivocal
--ridiculing his failed attempts at finessing the truth during his deposition
--acknowledging that the charges of false swearing, contempt of court and obstruction of justice were well-grounded
--pronouncing Clinton weak and reckless
--lamenting the attacks on Jones' character
--flatly declaring that what Clinton did was wrong
If you get stumped--a very strong possibility--feel free to enlist the aid of your cheerleader, well99.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 8:48am.
You did see the sarcasm part - for the very reasons you list above it gets nauseating to constantly see the man defended even though I know he is not the pure evil some make him out to be. He is the passive evil that Dante believed deserved a special place in hell from a literary stand point anyway.
It is like those who defend serial killers on the basis that he was good to his sister's roommate's kid. He may be but it isn't worth the effort but I do understand the desire for accuracy for what it is worth but it does bring out the sarcastic in me.
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 8:44am.
Sorry I don't have the gams to be a cheerleader.I think it's because they are real hairy.Comes in handy during winter.
global warming
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 8:49am.
Extra insulation? Then you will be suitably prepared for extended periods of global warming.
Mr. Bozell
Submitted by gwalt on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:31pm.
Mr. Bozell,
NOW will you do another Stop The Bias campaign, this time naming names and showing their faces?
Google John Edwards;sex scandal. 1.3MM hits.
Google Herman Cain;sex scandal. 33MM hits.
We have a two time presidential candidate, one time VP candidate cheating on his cancer-stricken (and now dead) wife, with a baby, paying his mistress with campaign money now indicted by a grand jury facing 4-5 years in prison. Add the hilarity of him promising Rielle a NY sky-top wedding with Dave Matthews playing the gig. I remeber waqtching CNN and guest after nguest for a week was Liberlas on CNN asking other Liberals: "Were we wrong in not covering Edwards for the last year? No, of course not. There simply wasn't enough evidence."
Yeah right.
They attacked Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Marco Rubio, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell and on and on.
It's as if the Liberal Media and Democrats were racists. Or something like that.
"A lot of briefing for a 2 hr. special with Dan Rather. Saw the show & wonder why we bothered". Ronald Reagan