Larry Craig Story Hits Big Media Web Sites
USA Today and CBS News now have pieces on their web sites about Mike Rogers’s allegations that Senator Larry Craig is a closeted homosexual who engaged in sordid sexual encounters in public restrooms.
The CBS piece is a blog entry, and the USA Today piece is a column. No matter. The dam is broken. We’re seeing only a trickle now, but it’s about to be a flood.
I predict that, by the weekend, the story will have hit most of the major newspapers, and will be discussed on the Sunday yakkers. All using the excuse that “the blogosphere is buzzing” or phrases to that effect.
This is the approach used on today’s Big Media web site entries. The authors pretend that they aren’t reporting the allegations, so much as they are reporting or commenting on others’ discussions about the allegations. For example: an entry on CBS News’s “Public Eye” site blames it all on the Spokane Spokesman-Review, and waxes philosophical about the implications:
On Wednesday, the Spokane Spokesman-Review made the controversial decision to run a story about rumors swirling around Idaho Senator Larry Craig – a story that likely never would have seen the light of day a few short years ago. The basics of the story are as follows: Gay-rights activist Mike Rogers claimed on his blog and a syndicated radio program that confidential sources had provided him information concerning consensual homosexual relationships involving Craig. The senator responded to the story through a spokesperson, calling it “completely ridiculous.”
You can read the paper’s story here for the background and comments by Rogers and Craig’s spokesperson. What makes this particular incident an interesting test case, though, is not the detail — it’s the existence of the story itself. Until recently, the traditions of journalism would have kept such a story from being written. Rumors, of course, have always been a staple of politics, but news outlets have traditionally shied away from repeating those rumors out of concern that doing so would provide a level of validation. News organizations also legitimately feel that they would be doing the dirty work of political opponents to push rumor and innuendo.
None of that is to say legitimate journalists couldn’t try to look into such rumors, but the old rules mandated real evidence be produced before a public airing. In today’s atmosphere, however, when rumors can fly around the world in an instant, there is a direct challenge to the media’s old way of dealing with such stories. If the media ignores it, they appear oblivious to the world they purportedly are covering. If they cover it, they’re open to charges of rumor-mongering. So what to do?
The answer is easy: talk about how others are talking about it. If the Spokane Spokesman-Review reported it, it must be news! A similar piece approach is used in the USA Today column:
Journalists love to expose hypocritical politicians, like environmentalists who drive SUVs or the traditional values pols who frequent strip clubs. But the mainstream media (aka “old media” or MSM) have long been reluctant to write about closeted gay politicians, even those espousing an anti-gay rights agenda.
A blogger obliterated that line last week.
Although these web entries pretend to be simply reporting on others’ reporting, they’re not really fooling anyone. This is simply a back-door way to report Rogers’s allegations, despite the fact that the sourcing of the allegations doesn’t meet the standards that these organizations pretend to adhere to when publishing such explosive accusations.
By the way: while I think that the allegations never should have been made in the first place, I do think it’s appropriate to discuss them at this point. Whatever you think of Rogers’s actions — and I happen to think they are despicable — Rogers has a track record of accuracy in making similar allegations. That doesn’t mean they’re true; the sources are still anonymous and the entire story is completely unverified. But my precept for journalism is: tell the reader what you know and what you don’t know. As long as news organizations do this, I think it’s legitimate to air stories like this.
But, Big Media types, some advice: don’t pretend that you’re above it, and don’t bypass your nonexistent “standards” by reporting on the “buzz.” That’s gutless. If you think the story is worth discussing, discuss it.
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Big Media’s “standards” are really no different than those of the bloggers they decry. It’s time for Big Media to admit it.
[…] Update: They’re not reporting the smear. They’re reporting the controversy surrounding the smear. […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Illinois insider: New page scandal is bogus, being pushed by “high-up Democrats”; Update: Craig “outing” smear goes mainstream (d4224a) — 10/19/2006 @ 5:37 pmItems like this just serve to highlight how low the legacy media has fallen. This is a despicable action, taken by a rabid partisan, in an effort to “out” one that does not subscribe to the requisite groupthink. One might wonder if the media would require a modicum of proof prior to running with this, but apparently no. Sad, reprehensible behavior, and apparently being against the gay is their last arrow in their quiver. Oh how I wish there was a principled opposition, which would actually force the R’s to govern in a responsible manner. Too much to wish for ? Apparently, yes it is.
JD (0c5b67) — 10/19/2006 @ 5:40 pmIt would still be wrong, but at least they’d be consistent if they were as eager to report on some of the dirt the right side bloggers throw around… but for some inexplicable reason, the MSM decides to exercise editorial restraint in those cases.
steve sturm (d3e296) — 10/19/2006 @ 6:32 pmThe drive by media is lucky if it’s still in business at the end of Bush’s term. They broke their pick on this one, and nothing they do can put it back together again.
bill (26027c) — 10/19/2006 @ 6:33 pmFrom Redsate.com
Senate Democrats Brankroll Crimminal Extortation
“the breaking Larry Craig story is not a story about sex, or sexuality, or hypocrisy, it’s about criminal extortion. Several months ago, Mike Rogers threatened to out an unnamed United States Senator if he voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. As we have covered here and here, this is a textbook case of extortion – seeking to obtain a “thing of value” (in this case, an important Senate vote) by threat to injure the reputation of another. When Mike Rogers carried through with this threat, he indicated that he was not merely bluffing; he was actually engaged in criminal extortion. Several right-leaning blogs have sought to tie this to Democrats by virtue of the recommended diary at Kos – it’s important, however, to remember that Senate Democrats are tied in to this in a much more direct fashion – many of them bankrolled the Ed Schultz show, which provided the forum for Rogers to act on his extortionary threat.”
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2006/senate_democrats_bankroll_extortion
Brit (09cf79) — 10/19/2006 @ 7:19 pmActually big media’s problem (which seems to be shared by Patterico and many of commenters) is that they think there is some information that the voters cannot be trusted with because they might misuse it. If many voters think sexual orientation is important, then the news media should report it just as they report age or marital status or religion.
I might have some sympathy for the driving good people out of politics argument if this was a story about a family member instead of the Senator himself. As it is, if this discourages people who like having sex in public restrooms from running for office, I can live with that.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 10/19/2006 @ 9:58 pmSo you’re assuming it’s true, James B. Shearer?
Patterico (de0616) — 10/19/2006 @ 10:01 pmThis is a very old tactic.
There’s a passage in Advise and Consent, which was published in 1959, when a reporter from the Post calls up a Senator and tells him that another Senator has been leaking to the press evidence that the first Senator had had a gay affair during the War. The Post reporter says something to the extent of “we won’t run it, of course, but sooner or later some paper in [$small_town] will, and then we’ll have to.”
It’s been a standard part of the newsmedia playbook for *at least* half a century.
aphrael (12fba5) — 10/19/2006 @ 11:00 pmEverything old is new again.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/19/2006 @ 11:12 pmthe allegation is train station trysts with four different guys.
assistant devil's advocate (f80535) — 10/20/2006 @ 12:03 ami love watching republican politicians blow up, but doesn’t it take more than this? don’t the guys at least have to come forward and identify themselves? the senator can force this if he wants, sue for defamation and take the blogger’s deposition. one way or another somebody’s gotta pay for this, i don’t see how they can get from here to a casualty-free mutual stand-down.
See, what they should have done, is deposed Craig in some unrelated matter, and asked him if he was gay. Then, if he answered in the negative, they could charge him with perjury, and gone public with a detailed investigation into the whole issue of his homosexuality, with graphic descriptions of his sexual behavior “not because of the sex, but because of the dishonesty.”
Phil (88ab5b) — 10/20/2006 @ 6:16 amLike it or not, gang, the media has spoken loud and clear on the issues of press freedom, responsibility and discretion, and their verdict is unnerving:
If you threaten to burn down our building, tie our hands, and cut off our heads, we’ll cower and clam up.
Otherwise, go schtupp yourself.
Phil Connors (d5c492) — 10/20/2006 @ 6:57 amSee, what they should have done, is deposed Craig in some unrelated matter, and asked him if he was gay. Then, if he answered in the negative, they could charge him with perjury, and gone public with a detailed investigation into the whole issue of his homosexuality, with graphic descriptions of his sexual behavior “not because of the sex, but because of the dishonesty.”
If he said it under oath, and a judge ruled that he had to answer because it was germane to the lawsuit (you don’t have to answer questions in a deposition if they have nothing to do with the lawsuit), then (assuming he lied) I’d be calling for him to resign.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/20/2006 @ 7:02 am“you don’t have to answer questions in a deposition if they have nothing to do with the lawsuit”
My guess is that the question of whether the deponent is living a double life sexually would always be relevant for credibility purposes. Just like all those background questions you get to ask about education, employment, prior convictions, etc.
After all, the Lewinski thing was in now way connected to the Jones matter, other than as a credibility question (he had sex with an intern, therefor he’s more likely to put the moves on another staffer, even though he swears he didn’t).
It’d be so easy to make Craig’s double life relevant to anything he says: “Mr. Craig, you’ve represented to the world that you are heterosexual your whole life, and it turns out your gay. Why should we believe you when you represent to us that (insert factual claim here)?”
Phil (88ab5b) — 10/20/2006 @ 8:13 amPatterico asked:
“So you’re assuming it’s true, James B. Shearer?”
I don’t think anyone supports making false accusations of this sort, certainly I don’t. However a lot of people seem to be claiming that this sort of thing should not be reported even if true which I don’t agree with.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 10/20/2006 @ 10:09 amPhil wrote:
As it occurs, President Clinton had previously signed the new Federal Rules of Evidence, which specifically stated that the type of questions he would be asked concerning the lovely Miss Lewinsky were considered germane in sexual harassment cases.
Dana (1d5902) — 10/21/2006 @ 6:11 amWinning Ugly…
As I write, Conrad Burns is still struggling in Montana but I’m not hopeful. It looks like the big winner is the Democratic strategy of outing and smearing politicians who are gay, or politicians who might be gay, or politicians……
JunkYardBlog (621918) — 11/8/2006 @ 2:45 am