Late hit
I haven't read the LA Times story detailing Ahnolds
preferred methods for picking up chicks, so I'm just not going to bother
commenting directly on the allegations. But here's what I want to know: Ahnold
has been campaigning for governor for months, and the allegations go back many
years, so why is this story coming out now? Let's just say it doesn't take
Sherlock Holmes to solve this mystery. I think that I can say with near
certainty that one of two things is true. Either the Times had this story for
months and withheld its release to do maximum damage, or the Democratic party
had the story and coordinated with the Times to ensure that the Times couldn't
run it until it could to maximum damage. It is the late hit strategy, and it
has been repeatedly put to good effect (see George W. Bush and DWI, a very near
miss).
How can I be so sure this is a late hit? That's easy. First, everyone has been predicting it, and because Bob Molhulland is an expert in its use. Second, I think that if Ahnolds accusers were for real, they would have been telling there story to anyone who would listen from day one. Wouldn't you? If you or your wife or whatever were groped by Ahnold and then you saw him on TV running for governor, wouldn't you be on the phone in like 5 minutes. This would be your one and only chance to get any real payback. It isn't like you are going to beat Ahnold up, and he has enough money and lawyers to make any lawsuit on your part a futile effort. Money and fame are mighty shields. One of the few times that a nobody can really nail a powerful person is when said person is running for office. On the campaign trail, they can't do anything really nasty against you because it would look bad, and there's a built in audience who will take you seriously (called members of the opposing party). I think it is a given then that under normal circumstances these kinds of allegations would have surfaced quite quickly. Why didn't they? Like I said before, either the Times or the Democratic party controlled the story. In verison a, the Times actually had all the ingredients for the story for some but withholds it until the end of the campaign when Ahnold won't have enough time to respond. Their motivation is simply partisan: the editors are liberal and they want to damage Republicans whenever possible. In version b, the Democratic party packages the story, lining up accusers willing to play the game, and then only releases it at a strategic moment. Here the motivations are the same, but they get a little cover. The paper can truthfully claim that they reported the story when the facts became known, but it isn't like they weren't in on the game. In either case, the Times has reduced itself to being nothing more than the Democratic party's whore.
Generally speaking, I am truly galled by the degree to which the media allows itself to knowingly be manipulated by the political class (of either party I might add) without revealing it to the consumer. The late hit is a perfect example. There's also the case of leaks. Some leaks come from the administration, some from those opposed to it. Whatever the source, the information is leaked for a political purpose. Why is it that when we hear about information from anonymous sources we never get any sort of disclaimer about what their motive is, or at least suspected to be. Why isn't it made clear that leaked information is intended to manipulate some process, to promote a particular agenda, or just to score points. Then there's the Clintons. Their operatives were so brazen that they even admitted controlling the release of negative stories to coincide with Friday evenings so that by Monday morning they could call it all old news. Reporters say that if it is news, they have to report it regardless of the motivations of the source. Fine, but we deserve to know why it is we are getting this information and why we are getting at a particular time. If the press or the TV news thinks that someone is playing games, they ought to say so outright. Back to Ahnold. If the Times did receive a packaged story from the Democrats, I can understand why they still ran it even though they know that the timing of its release is brazenly partisan. Why can't they just say so? Don't we readers have the right to know that the timing of this story was coordinated for political advantage. What I can't abide is that they didn't give us the inside story. If the story was a gift from the Democrats, it should have featured prominently in the reporting. They should have clearly said, important details of this story were only recently revealed to us by sources closely associated with the Democratic party and we (the Times, that is) believe that the timing of the release of this information is not incidental. They didn't of course. We all know that the media has now become even less trusted than purveyors of used cars. Maybe so few people trust the media because they know that this is the kind of information it is hiding from us.
How can I be so sure this is a late hit? That's easy. First, everyone has been predicting it, and because Bob Molhulland is an expert in its use. Second, I think that if Ahnolds accusers were for real, they would have been telling there story to anyone who would listen from day one. Wouldn't you? If you or your wife or whatever were groped by Ahnold and then you saw him on TV running for governor, wouldn't you be on the phone in like 5 minutes. This would be your one and only chance to get any real payback. It isn't like you are going to beat Ahnold up, and he has enough money and lawyers to make any lawsuit on your part a futile effort. Money and fame are mighty shields. One of the few times that a nobody can really nail a powerful person is when said person is running for office. On the campaign trail, they can't do anything really nasty against you because it would look bad, and there's a built in audience who will take you seriously (called members of the opposing party). I think it is a given then that under normal circumstances these kinds of allegations would have surfaced quite quickly. Why didn't they? Like I said before, either the Times or the Democratic party controlled the story. In verison a, the Times actually had all the ingredients for the story for some but withholds it until the end of the campaign when Ahnold won't have enough time to respond. Their motivation is simply partisan: the editors are liberal and they want to damage Republicans whenever possible. In version b, the Democratic party packages the story, lining up accusers willing to play the game, and then only releases it at a strategic moment. Here the motivations are the same, but they get a little cover. The paper can truthfully claim that they reported the story when the facts became known, but it isn't like they weren't in on the game. In either case, the Times has reduced itself to being nothing more than the Democratic party's whore.
Generally speaking, I am truly galled by the degree to which the media allows itself to knowingly be manipulated by the political class (of either party I might add) without revealing it to the consumer. The late hit is a perfect example. There's also the case of leaks. Some leaks come from the administration, some from those opposed to it. Whatever the source, the information is leaked for a political purpose. Why is it that when we hear about information from anonymous sources we never get any sort of disclaimer about what their motive is, or at least suspected to be. Why isn't it made clear that leaked information is intended to manipulate some process, to promote a particular agenda, or just to score points. Then there's the Clintons. Their operatives were so brazen that they even admitted controlling the release of negative stories to coincide with Friday evenings so that by Monday morning they could call it all old news. Reporters say that if it is news, they have to report it regardless of the motivations of the source. Fine, but we deserve to know why it is we are getting this information and why we are getting at a particular time. If the press or the TV news thinks that someone is playing games, they ought to say so outright. Back to Ahnold. If the Times did receive a packaged story from the Democrats, I can understand why they still ran it even though they know that the timing of its release is brazenly partisan. Why can't they just say so? Don't we readers have the right to know that the timing of this story was coordinated for political advantage. What I can't abide is that they didn't give us the inside story. If the story was a gift from the Democrats, it should have featured prominently in the reporting. They should have clearly said, important details of this story were only recently revealed to us by sources closely associated with the Democratic party and we (the Times, that is) believe that the timing of the release of this information is not incidental. They didn't of course. We all know that the media has now become even less trusted than purveyors of used cars. Maybe so few people trust the media because they know that this is the kind of information it is hiding from us.
Posted: Thu - October 2, 2003 at 06:15 PM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 18, 2003 11:44 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 18, 2003 11:44 AM