Media Curiosity Limited to Conservatives?
Ever notice that the media will probe in an area that has no known basis or proof when it comes to a conservative. Yet for liberals it takes a video and 100 witnesses before they will even consider probing. Fishing for dirt on conservatives is a daily exercise while deflecting dirt on the liberals is given equal effort. I don't have a link, but nobody seems to be pursuing the ACLU bigwig that was arrested for child pornography including videos of children being raped. The media response so far? Crickets chirping. That does not even take curiosity. Just a police report.
The probing question of curiosity that I have (which is admittedly fishing) has to do with the recent news that Bill Clinton's speech career since leaving office has brought in $40 million. Now I am all for legal ways of making money and speech making is usually honorable and above board. However, Bill has the distinction of having a wife who is a U.S. Senator. Where a bribe taking is illegal and there are limits to campaign contributions; there is no limit to the money a non-official can make giving speeches. So if there ever was an easy way to get money to Hillary in return for favors, it would be by hiring Bill to give a speech; paying his high fees without blinking. I have no evidence this is what is happening. However, isn't $40 Million enough to perk the curiosity of the media to investigate just who is booking and paying for these speeches? If he is speaking at a University, how many times is a school "donor" footing the bill? Is anyone asked why they are willing to pay so much for a simple speech? While Bill can give a charismatic interview or stump speech, I have never found his formal speeches to be all that inspiring or interesting.
It is always amazing how lucritive the careers of Senatorial spouses can be. Bill Clinton's success should peak some curiosity shouldn't it? So far all I am seeing is yawns.
The probing question of curiosity that I have (which is admittedly fishing) has to do with the recent news that Bill Clinton's speech career since leaving office has brought in $40 million. Now I am all for legal ways of making money and speech making is usually honorable and above board. However, Bill has the distinction of having a wife who is a U.S. Senator. Where a bribe taking is illegal and there are limits to campaign contributions; there is no limit to the money a non-official can make giving speeches. So if there ever was an easy way to get money to Hillary in return for favors, it would be by hiring Bill to give a speech; paying his high fees without blinking. I have no evidence this is what is happening. However, isn't $40 Million enough to perk the curiosity of the media to investigate just who is booking and paying for these speeches? If he is speaking at a University, how many times is a school "donor" footing the bill? Is anyone asked why they are willing to pay so much for a simple speech? While Bill can give a charismatic interview or stump speech, I have never found his formal speeches to be all that inspiring or interesting.
It is always amazing how lucritive the careers of Senatorial spouses can be. Bill Clinton's success should peak some curiosity shouldn't it? So far all I am seeing is yawns.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, media, speeches
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 8:49 AM
11 Comments:
At 8:32 PM,
Jacob said…
I don't think he was a bigwig, exactly. I heard in the media that he was a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU. I suppose you could call him a bigwig, but it wouldn't really be in the same league as a national chapter or anything.
Not that it matters, since child porn is disgusting no matter who commits the crime.
Anyway, to address your point about the media having a double standard when it comes to these sorts of things. I think it's worth noting that I heard about this almost a week ago, from a very liberal blogsite.
At 8:32 PM,
Jacob said…
Crap. I don't think that link worked. Here it is:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/02/former_aclu_official_nailed_fo.php
At 10:57 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Jacob,
To put things in perspective think of Ted Haggert, the pastor of the big church that had a relationship with a gay prostitute. He had a large church, but I never heard of him before the story broke. I would say he was as big as the ACLU guy.
Look at how the news had wall to wall coverage of the Haggert story and the ACLU story gets crickets chirping.
Kudos to the liberal blog that posted on this. I am still waiting for the NYT, CNN, NBC and other biggies to give it attention.
At 9:02 AM,
SkyePuppy said…
On the Billary question, just change the names. If Laura Bush were getting $40 million in speaking fees, would the media give it the same coverage they're giving Bill Clinton's income?
Double standard. Big time.
At 10:54 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Skyepupy, good point and analogy with Laura Bush.
Liberals always challenge the media bias charge. I truly wonder if they really believe it or if they are simply denying it while loving every minute having such a powerful tool in their hip-pocket?
Sometimes it is not in what they say, but what is foundationally viewed as fact that underscores their reporting. One big theme is the strong view that the GOP cannot be trusted and that everything must be questioned. With the Dems, the view is that it takes overwhelming evidence to even move them to ask questions. Actually with Dems, by that time there are no questions to ask - just reporting facts.
At 7:22 PM,
Jacob said…
Really? I knew about Ted Faggart long before the truth of his homosexuality came out. I remember seeing him in some documentary trying to challenge Richard Dawkins on evolution, which was a bit embarrassing for him because he tried to accuse Dawkins afterwards of saying that his children were animals.
Anyway.
Kudos to the liberal blog that posted on this. I am still waiting for the NYT, CNN, NBC and other biggies to give it attention.
Did Fox?
At 9:40 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Yes, I heard about it on Fox.
At 11:44 PM,
paw said…
There is no equivalence between Haggard and the allegedly deviant scumbag ACLU guy. You get the push back so often because so often you take untenable positions.
Charles Rust-Tierney, former president of the Virginia ACLU, is in the grand scheme of things a nobody. Do you know your state ACLU people? I bet you don't. I've known some. Its not glamorous. They have little power. Assuming the ACLU operates in every state, as president of a state chapter he's one of fifty peers, somewhere downstream from the head office.
Now Haggard, he spoke for tens of millions of people. Those people like to think of themselves as involved in a culture war, a very large part of which is anti-gay. Do you not get how that is newsworthy? If you don't see it, you just have to trust me on this one: its right up there. I grabbed this off the BBC because its very succinct. Note that Haggard was THE PRESIDENT OF AN EVANGELICAL SOCIETY CLAIMING 30,000,000 MEMBERS. I bet the shoes that the ACLU guy wore to court were all broken down in back.
The leader of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals in the US has resigned after being accused of paying for sex with a man.
The Reverend Ted Haggard said he would also temporarily step aside as head of his 14,000-strong New Life Church while his colleagues investigated the claims.
Mr Haggard, who is known as a vocal opponent of same-sex marriages, denies the accusations.
From wikipedia: In 2005, Haggard was listed by Time magazine as one of the top 25 most influential evangelicals in America.
At 9:04 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
PAW,
Funny a guy that is supposed to represent 1 in 10 people in the US and I never heard of him before the story broke. ( I see I even misspelled his name) I have a feeling many of the 30 million people never heard of him, but I understand the nature of organizations cobbled together.
Anyway, if due to numbers Haggard deserved the attention he received for weeks I would still state that the ACLU guy deserves a mention. I mean how many times do we hear of a teacher having sex with a student? Nearly every other week now. They are unknowns and do not represent anybody. A huge organization like the ACLU tends to support all the seedier areas of free speech. This breach of going too far in the pornography world should be raised. It is relavent to what the ACLU does. I wonder if the ACLU headquarters has denounced the guy? Maybe somebody who frequents their circles can fill me in if they have.
At 9:56 AM,
paw said…
Do you really not get how Haggard is news? Really? Does your misguided persecution complex run that deep?
The whole deal with "lack of denouncement = evidence of (hypocrisy or somehow under-cuts a tangentially related third thing?)" .... you guys have that down. But its not persuasive outside of your own circles and the easily snowed.
The ACLU may have denounced this or they may not have, perhaps just not yet as I believe everything is still alledged. If you're so interested, why don't you bring us back evidence that they haven't denounced it instead of sitting there an insinuating. And WND and Malkin's blog don't count. I'm done jumping through hoops when the very premise can be rejected.
At 10:35 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
paw,
Do you really not get how Haggard is news? Really? Does your misguided persecution complex run that deep?
I have not a clue what you are talking about here. I never said the Haggard story should not have been run. I never said it should not have had as much coverage. Hypocrisy is a very strong story and it ran. I did not say is should not have. I resent a man who takes the cloak of Christianity and then indulges in the things he preaches against.
The comparison, though not hypocrisy, is that the media targets anyone who is part of any public forum/organization and gets caught doing something illegal or unethical. That is the news template. They did not follow it with this ACLU guy and they often overlook others on the left as well.
The main point that the comments seem to be avoiding is the lack of any curiosity about the Bill Clinton speech millions. The media is good about taking many situations and simply bringing them to attention with curious questions. I have not heard any on this as is often the case when it is a Democrat in question.
Post a Comment
<< Home