So, Cain is better than Bill Clinton.

Sorry... I wasn't clear enough.

It was the number of stories that ran the first three days of the allegations. So with cain it has been 50 stories from CBS, ABC, and NBC.

With each of the women vs clinton it was
1 for paula jones
2 for kathleen wiley
and 3 for braddock (IIRC)

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20111103124000.aspx
I don't think "number of stories" is any kind of metric for judging the impact of news comparing today to fifteen years ago. I was there when the Clinton stories broke, and they had plenty of exposure. And it went on for years. I don't know what will happen with this story, but I don't expect it to go on for years.
 
Good questiona bout flowers and lewinsky... But maybe we should look and see how much attention those accusations got in the first 3 DAYS.

ETA: Looking into the Lewinsky affair... it was first reported in the drudge report on Jan 18th. it doesn't appear in mainstream news until Jan 21st.

The Lewinsky story is what made Drudge. Before that, he was disdained by mainstream news organizations because they saw him as a gossip monger with no journalistic standards, so it's hardly surprising there was a lag before anyone else picked it up. But Drudge was first on Lewinsky and, as it turned out, he was right, so it became much harder to ignore him. And nowadays there are lots of Drudges.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/clinton_scandal/50031.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/timeline.htm

I am not finding any other reporting in ABC, CBS or NBC (not even newsweek who was scooped by drudge) prior to jan 21st... so that would be the reporting of this claim was 1 source within the first 3 days....

Cain is now at 63 stories about him in the first 4 days... .and was at 50 in the first three.

It's overkill, but that's the way it goes, unfortunately. Comparing it to the the first days of the Clinton stories is a dumb way to try to show bias.


And I also agree with your opinion about how the world has changed... of course it has nothing to do with the fact that this is happening to a republican (the party of "high morals")... nothing to see there.

Right. Just ask Anthony Weiner, Elliott Spitzer and John Edwards about how easy they got off.

Until Cain or one of his advisors states that "this is what happens when you drag a $20 bill through a trailer park" I will give him a little bit of lee way... how about you?

Carville's remark is ugly but irrelevant. You'd do better to stick to the point. As for giving Cain leeway -- there are plenty of better reasons to oppose him so the alleged harassment doesn't matter much to me.
 
Last edited:
I don't think "number of stories" is any kind of metric for judging the impact of news comparing today to fifteen years ago. I was there when the Clinton stories broke, and they had plenty of exposure. And it went on for years. I don't know what will happen with this story, but I don't expect it to go on for years.

That would require two things: 1. Cain to become President (or maybe VP or a cabinet officer for Pres. Romney); and 2. More meat to the story, i.e., more women, more specific allegations, etc.

Number 1 is very unlikely. 2 -- ???
 
I'm not sure why there's any question about "who leaked" the story. Did the Cain camp really think it was not going to come out if/when he was vetted for the candidacy?
 
The Lewinsky story is what made Drudge. Before that, he was disdained by mainstream news organizations because they saw him as a gossip monger with no journalistic standards, so it's hardly surprising there was a lag before anyone else picked it up. But Drudge was first on Lewinsky and, as it turned out, he was right, so it became much harder to ignore him. And nowadays there are lots of Drudges.
Not disagreeing, but pointing out the difference in coverage... Clinton (a known womanizer) gets a pass in the first week of each scandal, but when it is a conservative republican it becomes a feeding frenzy.

It's overkill, but that's the way it goes, unfortunately. Comparing it to the the first days of the Clinton stories is a dumb way to try to show bias.

Personally I think that there are valid comparisons to how each party is portrayed in the early stages of a "scandal." If it is a liberal/democrat in the early stages they seem to get a pass. If it is a conservative republican, it becomes a feeding frenzy very quickly.

Though I will agree that you can't really compare 1994, 1996 and 1998 with 2011. I will also agree that much of this feeding frenzy is directly descended from the Clinton/lewinsky issues.

Right. Just ask Anthony Weiner, Elliott Spitzer and John Edwards about how easy they got off.

comparing apples and oranges. I am not talking about the feeding frenzy that the stories ultimately generated, but I am talking about the media attention to the scandals in the first few days (say the first three days). In each of those, there was NO feeding frenzy for weeks/months. (john edwards had been rumored to be cheating for months, but they were just rumors. Even after the national enquirer "broke" the story, it took weeks for other media to cover it.)

Carville's remark is ugly but irrelevant. You'd do better to stick to the point. As for giving Cain leeway -- there are plenty of better reasons to oppose him so the alleged harassment doesn't matter much to me.

I am sticking with the point. Cain has been lambasted in the first 3 days of this "news" while by comparison Clinton had NO media coverage for his biggest indescresions in that same time period. (50+ stories on cain vs 6 on clinton). We can expand that and look at other liberal democrats and the response time vs conservative republicans if you want.

Carville's remarks are very ugly and very relevant... if Cain's handlers make any type of statements like those, I'd bet dollars to donuts that it would be HUGE news and he would be lambasted for it.... Clinton got a pass for Carville's statement.
 
Even after the national enquirer "broke" the story, it took weeks for other media to cover it.)

I'd like to point out that the National Enquirer claims everyone cheats.

eta: I'm amused by the idea that the media is driven more by political bias than it is scandal.
 
Last edited:
I am not talking about the feeding frenzy that the stories ultimately generated, but I am talking about the media attention to the scandals in the first few days (say the first three days). In each of those, there was NO feeding frenzy for weeks/months.
Now there is a claim that you should be able to back up. Use the cases of Anthony Weiner and Elliott Spitzer and show that there "was NO feeding frenzy for weeks/months." (Your CAPS). Then take the case of, say, David Vitter and Mark Foley and show that there was not a corresponding gap.

Note that all of those people, and many others, were driven out of office. Vitter returned to the Senate to a standing ovation. For extra credit, show how much media attention that got.
 
I'd like to point out that the National Enquirer claims everyone cheats.
with bigfoot on a UFO

eta: I'm amused by the idea that the media is driven more by political bias than it is scandal.

and yet it does appear that if it is a conservative republican it is announced and reported on much earlier with less supporting evidence.

I'm not trying to make the blanket claim but it is rather interesting to see how the media is portraying individuals.
 
with bigfoot on a UFO
That was more Weekly World News territory.

and yet it does appear that if it is a conservative republican it is announced and reported on much earlier with less supporting evidence.

I'm not trying to make the blanket claim but it is rather interesting to see how the media is portraying individuals.

I just don't think the evidence is strong enough to support it.
I will say, traditionally, republican scandals tend to be much juicier.
 
Now there is a claim that you should be able to back up. Use the cases of Anthony Weiner and Elliott Spitzer and show that there "was NO feeding frenzy for weeks/months." (Your CAPS). Then take the case of, say, David Vitter and Mark Foley and show that there was not a corresponding gap.

You are correct, I have not done the full study of the medias reaction. I shouldn't have said NO feeding frenzy... I should have returned to my original position on clinton vs cain for which I do have the full evidence. I do know that there were rumors of edwards and spitzer for weeks/months on blogs, but that they were not reported in the national news media for at least a week. But I have not conducted a full study of each person and how quickly the stories broke.

Note that all of those people, and many others, were driven out of office. Vitter returned to the Senate to a standing ovation. For extra credit, show how much media attention that got.

That is OT for my reply and is not part of the way I framed my discussion points. The point is that for Clinton (a known womanizer, who had "bimbo squads" to deal with women reporting his affairs) he often got a pass from the national media in the early stages of the reports breaking. While Cain is getting hammered by the same media with much less information available.
 
That was more Weekly World News territory.



I just don't think the evidence is strong enough to support it.
I will say, traditionally, republican scandals tend to be much juicier.

Even showing that Cain has had 75 stories run about him in the first 4 days since these allegations have surfaced whereas in Clinton's days he had 6 stories run about 3 credible claims.
 
Even showing that Cain has had 75 stories run about him in the first 4 days since these allegations have surfaced whereas in Clinton's days he had 6 stories run about 3 credible claims.

Not really, the time periods don't feel truly compatible; do you underestimate the power of the internet in the modern news cycle?
 
Not really, the time periods don't feel truly compatible; do you underestimate the power of the internet in the modern news cycle?

Notice that I agree with the issue that the time periods don't feel truly compatible.

I also understand the "power" of the internet in the modern news cycle, and we can't forget the cable news networks also.

I wasn't comparing the internet or cable, but rather the metrics of the network news. In 94, 96 and 98 the cable networks and the internet were abuzz (and it was a feeding frenzy) for clinton in those places, but in the mainstream network news it wasn't reported. Unlike 2011 where cain has had over 75 stories in 4 days. 75 to 6 isn't really comparable coverage... no matter how we want to spin it.
 
Not disagreeing, but pointing out the difference in coverage... Clinton (a known womanizer) gets a pass in the first week of each scandal, but when it is a conservative republican it becomes a feeding frenzy.

You might as well say Clinton (a known white guy) gets a pass for the first week but when it's a black man it becomes a feeding frenzy. There are lots of variables here and you're simply seizing on the one that confirms what you believe.

I am sticking with the point. Cain has been lambasted in the first 3 days of this "news" while by comparison Clinton had NO media coverage for his biggest indescresions in that same time period. (50+ stories on cain vs 6 on clinton).

Again, those raw numbers are meaningless unless you can account for all the variables.

We can expand that and look at other liberal democrats and the response time vs conservative republicans if you want.

No thanks. Same problems and same opportunites for confirmation bias.

Carville's remarks are very ugly and very relevant... if Cain's handlers make any type of statements like those, I'd bet dollars to donuts that it would be HUGE news and he would be lambasted for it.... Clinton got a pass for Carville's statement.

This is simply speculation with nothing whatsoever to support it.
 
Not disagreeing, but pointing out the difference in coverage... Clinton (a known womanizer) gets a pass in the first week of each scandal, but when it is a conservative republican it becomes a feeding frenzy.

Apart from being poorly researched, your comment forgets that the Republicans market themselves as the party of good old fashioned, family values, abstinence-until-marriage etc, so it's much more fun when they can't control their penis brains.
 
Now there is a claim that you should be able to back up. Use the cases of Anthony Weiner and Elliott Spitzer and show that there "was NO feeding frenzy for weeks/months." (Your CAPS). Then take the case of, say, David Vitter and Mark Foley and show that there was not a corresponding gap.

Note that all of those people, and many others, were driven out of office. Vitter returned to the Senate to a standing ovation. For extra credit, show how much media attention that got.


Since you asked... here is some of that evidence.

http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2011/20110622055055.aspx

That’s not the way the networks acted in the fall of 2006, when the MRC demonstrated a real feeding frenzy in the case of Republican Rep. Mark Foley, who quickly resigned after ABC’s Brian Ross reported he’d sent lewd AOL instant messages to former congressional pages. In the first 12 days of that story, the networks “flooded the zone” with 152 stories (55 evening stories and 97 morning stories or segments).

By contrast, Democrat Weiner’s weeks of trying to avoid resignation didn’t draw a similar flood. In the first 12 days of the Weiner scandal (from May 29 through June 9), the networks filed only 56 stories (just 11 in the evening, 45 in the morning).

This includes partial stories, like Brian Williams introducing the scandal in a disdainful 20-second brief near the end of the June 3 newscast, in the midst of a news potpourri from politics to actresses who’d died. Williams lamented it was “the kind of thing that used to be people’s own business.” Williams did find what he thought was a real scandal on June 2: Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey taking a helicopter flight to his son’s soccer game.

Before Weiner declared on the afternoon of June 6 that he’d lied in denying the story that he sent lewd Twitter messages to young women, the networks had aired an even smaller sample: one evening news story each (counting NBC’s Williams brief) and 13 morning stories. By the time Weiner resigned on the afternoon of June 16 (after 19 days), the overall number still didn’t quite match our Foley number: 113 (21 evening stories and 92 in the morning.)
 
Last edited:
Apart from being poorly researched, your comment forgets that the Republicans market themselves as the party of good old fashioned, family values, abstinence-until-marriage etc, so it's much more fun when they can't control their penis brains.

Poorly researched.... by all means show that the numbers are wrong... I'll wait for it.

And thanks for admitting that it is much "juicier" and "more fun" when it is the party of "morality" who is getting nailed. I already knew that.

But the replies and behaviour shows the hypocrisy of the left.
 
You might as well say Clinton (a known white guy) gets a pass for the first week but when it's a black man it becomes a feeding frenzy. There are lots of variables here and you're simply seizing on the one that confirms what you believe.
He was white? REally? I would swear the folks on the left said he was the first "black" president. I must have read that wrong.

You mean to tell me that Clinton wasn't a known womanizer? That he wasn't surrounded by tales of having sex with women who weren't his wife? Really? I remember reading about him being a player when he was running for office in 1992... but none of it was in the mainstream media.

By all means tell me which variables we aren't taking into account. the mainstream media has nailed Cain with over 60 stories about these allegations in the first 4 days. That is a fact.

And at the same time we can demonstrate that in the clinton administration for sexual encounters were not documented in the first week (6 stories about 3 different women).

There are several variables at work there... the rise in the 24 hour news cycle (but it did exist in the clinton times), the rise in the power of the internet (but they did also exist in the clinton times), the rise in the power of cable news networks (which also existed in the same times)...

what other variables am I leaving out?

(on an aside, I voted for Clinton 2x and i think that Cain is a loon)

Again, those raw numbers are meaningless unless you can account for all the variables.
such as?

As for the Carville quote being unrelated... I doubt it, but hey I can be wrong. I'd love to see Cain's people say the same thing... but then again, they wouldn't get elected then.
 
Conservative conspiracy theory site.

Ah... MRC... they are a conservative site. I have never doubted that. Can you demonstrate that their numbers are WRONG?

Don't you guys say the same thing about websites that support your claptrap about the OWS...

Don't you then try it when it is from the Wall street journal, or some other website? REally?
 

Back
Top Bottom