CNN media analyst Howard Kurtz on Monday offered Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Eliot Spitzer as examples of how the press don't give Democrats the benefit of the doubt when it comes to sex scandals.
Responding to questions about why the media have either ignored or taken sides on this weekend's brouhaha surrounding Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), Kurtz sent the following absurd message via Twitter:
My first thought was that this was sent at about 5 PM on Memorial Day. Maybe Kurtz was at a picnic and had a couple too many beers.
After all, it is common knowledge that Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, who was working on the Paula Jones case for the magazine at the time, had the Monica Lewinsky story ready to go only to have it squelched by top editors.
If Matt Drudge hadn't broken the story, America might never have found out what was going on in the Oval Office.
Is this what Kurtz believes is an example of media not giving a Democrat the benefit of the doubt on a sex scandal?
As for John Edwards, the National Enquirer first broke his sordid story in October 2007.
It wasn't until July 2008 that mainstream media outlets thought it was newsworthy. By then, the junior senator from Illinois had already locked up the Democrat nomination for president.
Many political observers believe that if the media had jumped on this story sooner thereby knocking Edwards out of the race, Hillary Clinton would have taken the majority of his votes in the caucuses and primaries defeating Obama.
Is this also what Kurtz believes is an example of media not giving a Democrat the benefit of the doubt on a sex scandal?
As for Eliot Spitzer, he now has his own show on the cable news network that also employs Kurtz.
If Kurtz thinks this is the way conservatives are treated when caught with their pants down, one has to seriously wonder what the color of the sky is in his world.
