Anti-McCain Sludge I
(The New York Times Smear I)
In my immediately prior post I used the sub-title “Anti-McCain Sludge” not dreaming I’d actually use it as a main title today. Given the speed with which the liberal media has turned on Sen. McCain, I confidently add “I” to the title today knowing this theme will most certainly appear several times before Election Day.
For those unaware, the New York Times published a way too clever piece today never accusing Sen. McCain of an extramarital affair (sex! more liberal media obsession with sex!) with a lobbyist (corruption!) but one that was super-heavy on innuendo. I’m going to leave my secondary observation here as any more words simply gives the smear too much credit. The piece was devoid of any facts that could support a serious charge.
My primary observation is: I assume high profile lobbyists are very well compensated. If females cannot have the access to powerful male politicians for the now extremely obvious reason and the market value for female lobbyists tumbles, whose fault will it be? The New York Times? Sexist, powerful males? I wonder.
We will never be a gender blind society until we are a gender blind society.
(The New York Times Smear I)
In my immediately prior post I used the sub-title “Anti-McCain Sludge” not dreaming I’d actually use it as a main title today. Given the speed with which the liberal media has turned on Sen. McCain, I confidently add “I” to the title today knowing this theme will most certainly appear several times before Election Day.
For those unaware, the New York Times published a way too clever piece today never accusing Sen. McCain of an extramarital affair (sex! more liberal media obsession with sex!) with a lobbyist (corruption!) but one that was super-heavy on innuendo. I’m going to leave my secondary observation here as any more words simply gives the smear too much credit. The piece was devoid of any facts that could support a serious charge.
My primary observation is: I assume high profile lobbyists are very well compensated. If females cannot have the access to powerful male politicians for the now extremely obvious reason and the market value for female lobbyists tumbles, whose fault will it be? The New York Times? Sexist, powerful males? I wonder.
We will never be a gender blind society until we are a gender blind society.
posted by Zack at 6:48 PM
5 Comments:
[Conscience again--you must have me blocked]:
"We will never be a gender blind society until we are a gender blind society."? I for one hope we never see the day when we are a gender blind society. I don't care how bad my eyesight gets, or how good looking you may be, but I will never find you as attractive as members of the opposite gender!
Conscience,
Did the market value for female lobbyists go up, down or stay the same in the last 48 hours?
Conscience,
Using Name/URL I was able to post as "zacklyright as test".
(Conscience)
I know, that's what I've always done, but it is still blocking me. Maybe I have a pop-up blocker that is causing problems. Or, you're trying to censor me!
(Conscience)
If you would lift the block and stop censoring me, I could answer your questions faster! Just kidding, you need to lighten up pal.
And yes, I do think this coverage will make a male politician a bit less inclined to want to deal with a female lobbyist. But I don't think that's the point. Either it was a legitimate news story or it wasn't, and if it was, than it should be reported despite the consequences.
I supppose your point is that in its alleged overzealousness to attack a Republican on illegitimate grounds, the supposed bastion of the liberal media was acting contrary to one of its pet issues. But, it seems to me that that argument is too circuitous to have any force. The issue is whether or not it was a legitimate story.
Post a Comment
<< Home