Kurtz: The Mind of the Hack!

Insights into the Mind of the Hack: On Twitter, Howard Kurtz of TinaBeast actually cites the MSM’s coverage of the John Edwards scandal as an example of not cutting a Democratic pol some slack:

Those who say media give Dems benefit of doubt with sex scandals: Uh, Edwards, Spitzer, Clinton, McGreevey, etc. etc.?

Hello? … P.S.: Kurtz himself, back when he was at the Washington Post laboring under the worst conflict of interest in journalism, had enough sense to note that the MSM “steered clear” of the Edwards story and only “tried halfheartedly to confirm the tawdry tale” while “they ignored it in public.” He blamed sympathy for Elizabeth, not politics.** But whatever the reason, it’s hardly an example of not giving a Dem the benefit of the doubt. That today’s Kurtz could convince himself otherwise, even momentarily, even on Twitter, says something about the MSM’s reflexive powers of self-justification. … P.P.S.: Of course, keep rockin‘ …

**–Blaming sympathy for Elizabeth, which was a big factor, provokes the obvious question: Would the MSM have had such deep and abiding compassion for Elizabeth, and been such a willing participant in telling the Edwards’ (bogus) story, if she’d been a Republican?

  • bookender

    Sigh…I wish both sides could show a little intellectual honesty and help hold their own people accountable when they’re clearly in the wrong. Ensign was wrong. Edwards was wrong. Both of them lost their political ambitions for it, so the adversarial system is working, after a fashion. But what a tiresome, dishonest fashion!

    Criticize Edwards, and Democrats start talking about David Vitter, as if that made Edwards’ lies somehow more palatable. Bring up Vitter, and Republicans suddenly want to talk about Bill Clinton instead. It’s a little absurd. Both parties have some corrupt and sleazy pols. Which party has 60% of the corruption and which has 40%? Which party has gotten away with more shenanigans? Those questions aren’t really so important. A healthy reaction would be to root out the liars and creeps in both parties, instead of surrendering to this culture of mutual recriminations and willful blindness to the log in your own eye.

    I think part of the problem is that so many influential political leaders get their start as lawyers. Lawyers are taught to advocate for their clients whether their clients are innocent or guilty, and both politicians and media figures wind up treating the two parties almost like they would treat a legal client. I skew a little bit conservative, but the Republicans aren’t my client, and when a Republican is caught stashing cash in the freezer (Jefferson – D), or emailing lewd photos to college students (Weiner – D), or dishing out federal money as blackmail payments (Ensign – R), I want him tossed out on his ear and criminally prosecuted if possible. We need more people (like Kaus!) who look at things as they are, instead of letting party or agenda loyalty cloud their vision.

    • Dredmalice

      Wrong. Kaus does let agenda loyalty cloud his criticism all the time. Which is why I brought up Vitter, because Kaus didn’t spend a sliver as much time on him (a sitting congressman, who cheated on his wife, with a prostitute,) as he did on Edwards. Yes, everything you said before that is the same thing everyone says when they want everything to be hunky-dory all even-handed and everything, but you tipped your hand when you gave Kaus a pass.

  • George B

    Ask Jenny Sanford how the MSM treated her family after Mark Sanford (R) was caught “hiking the Appalachian Trail”.

  • garnet

    And, of course, the MSM (in the form of Newsweek) famously declined to tackle the Lewinsky/Clinton matter. That was left to Drudge.

  • daveinma

    The MSM sat on the Edwards thing for a year even when there was embarrassing video footage, but the NYT front-paged a *rumor* of a McCain affair immediately.

  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » YA THINK? Peter Ingemi: Too Many Coincidences In Weiner’s Tale. Related: Is America Ready for …

  • Dredmalice

    If Elizabeth Edwards had been a Republican, there would be no blame, because the story wouldn’t have gotten near as much attention. How many people even know that David Vitter cheated on his wife with a prostitute? How many Americans even know who John Ensign is? What major media has reported on Tom Coburn’s role in that scandal? There is a double standard alright, in favor of the GOP.

    • Murgatroyd

      There is a double standard alright, in favor of the GOP.

      Mary Jo Kopechne and the fillings of several waitress sandwiches were unavailable for comment.

      • stephenkaus

        “Youthful indiscretions” Henry Hyde

    • davidbodavid

      This is a ridiculous comparison. If people know who Vitter and Ensign at all, it is because of the scandals. Edwards was a Presidential candidate for 2 straight cycles and was his parties nominee for VP. He wasn’t just some Senator.

      And Elizabeth Edwards was different as well. She was quite well known. I’m a political junkie and I couldn’t tell you what Vitter or Ensign’s wives look like or even what their names are.

      • Dredmalice

        Nah, Ensign was a very powerful sitting Senator. His story involved corruption and hypocrisy way beyond Edwards’. Not to mention the Jerry Springer-like circumstances of the involvment of his staff members, bribery, and the involvment of another powerful sitting Senator in the cover up. “Two time primary also-ran” doesn’t begin to compare.

  • Murgatroyd

    That today’s Kurtz could convince himself otherwise, even momentarily, even on Twitter, says something about the MSM’s reflexive powers of self-justification.

    Please! He doesn’t need to convince himself. The Party define what truth is, and we must believe it!