CNN and their tabloid curiosity
ROS sends us a link to NewBusters who reports on John King’s first question to Newt Gingrich about his wife’s dishing on her marriage;
You all know that I’m no Gingrich fan, but it does grate on me that the debate is becoming more about the candidates’ personal and professional than the issues. I oppose Barack Obama and Ron Paul on the issues, not on whether I like them personally or not.
And who is shocked that an ex-wife would attack her husband? If you could see my in box, you’d know I’m not surprised. I have several ex-wives dishing on their former spouses in the Stolen Valor arena. Just got one yesterday on one of our favorites.
A moderator whose job is to focus on the debate shouldn’t be asking questions better served in the tabloids than debate on national television. I don’t remember anyone asking Abe Lincoln if his wife was stable enough to be first lady during his series of debates.
Category: Media
MSM template:
Democrat–do not question qualifications or lack thereof. Do not bring to light any information which might be embarassing, and if some outlier blogger or hack does (Drudge) so, use all available resources to discredit and marginalize source and those who would bring it to light. Families are not to be mentioned, no matter how egregious the behavior (WH Travel Office, etc.)
Republican–No qualifications are appropriate or are good enough to be dog catcher. Bring up all potentially embarassing moments in candidate’s life, up to and including the paste-eating incident at age four. Ensure all are page one, above the fold, and demonstrate conclusively that said person is a danger to America and the world. Children’s behavior is fair game to demonstrate failure as a parent and further disqualification for office.
There, wasn’t that simple?
We should really feel lucky. At least this debate isn’t anywhere near as ugly as it got between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, or John Quincy Adams John Clay and Andrew Jackson. You want to talk about nasty, even for standards of today, it was pretty bad.
Having said that, We should know better. There will always be partisan hacks. But there is a line you do not cross What is that line/ Well personal matters. Unless you find out that a President’s wife is a Soviet Spy (or his mistress has close ties to the Mafia as in JFK) you really shouldn’t report on them.
Okay, so lemme get this straight. The woman in question dishing the dirt is wife #2, who was cheating with Newt on wife #1.
Isn’t that like a whore calling someone a prostitute?
#3 NHSparky,
Seems more like an adultress calling another woman a home-wrecker. :p
The American media has long ago decided on a paradigm where salacious sensationalism equals profits, and profits trump reason.
It’s also easier than conducting actual reporting. Irrespective of party, the media will always latch onto these types of stories because of the above, and because issues such as Gingrich’s character frankly, does matter to many people. The family values crowd may have serious issues with newt’s past, but the politico-media cabal isn’t setup to allow that disagreement to occur in a vacuum.
I wouldn’t have introduced this, or any other character based subject into the GOP debates, but when you get into double digits and less candidates, the fodder starts to thin, so this wasn’t very surprising.
“I oppose Barack Obama and Ron Paul on the issues, not on whether I like them personally or not.” So do I completely agree.