Here’s Juan Williams, formerly of NPR, responding to the storm of criticism that Herman Cain has faced from liberal black commentators.
Everybody’s wondering who was behind the airing of the sexual-harassment allegations against Mr. Cain. I’m inclined to doubt that Barack Obama’s organization is responsible, because it would serve their cause far better to wait until the general election, in the hope that Mr. Cain defeats Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination. Mr. Cain’s team blamed Rick Perry, but has since backed off. Could it be the Romney campaign’s doing? He certainly has the most to gain.
22 Comments
It seems peculiar to think that any Republican is “behind the airing” of these allegations. Since when did the Democrats in the media – Politico in particular – take their marching orders from any Republicans?
Not marching orders, but it’s not surprising that many on the Left would run with a leak about Cain (aside from the strategic considerations I mentioned, which ought to mitigate against it). He’s wandered off the reservation.
When a conservative is found misbehaving, there is a knee jerk reaction from the Right to blame not the misbehavior, but the “left wing media” for reporting it. That the media are left wing and their reporting biased are taken as a priori truths which require no evidence or justification.
When John Edwards and Gary Hart were found with their hands in the cookie jar (or, in Hart’s case, the rice bowl), their escapades were brought to light not because the story fell into a reporter’s lap (as evidently is the case with Politico) but because of investigative reporting by “the liberal media.”
Anne Coulter’s explanation is the shame felt by the Left that “our blacks are better than their blacks.” What-ever. Maybe she can help me understand why it is that when the media report on Cain’s dissembling and evasiveness, it’s because they want to bring down a conservative, but when they report on Hart or Edwards, it’s because … why exactly?
No, just truths.
Gee, let’s see. During his presidential campaign, John Edwards fathered a child out of wedlock while cheating on his dying wife, got a senior campaign staffer to pretend to be the father, and used millions in campaign funding to try to cover the whole thing up. He ended up being indicted on six felony counts. Herman Cain did … what, exactly?
Derb sums up:
Anyway: what Juan Williams is talking about here is the special hell reserved by black liberal commentators for black conservatives. I’d say he ought to know the territory if anyone does.
One thing which conservatives excel in is self-victimization. If conservatives or their policies are portrayed in an unflattering light, it’s because of an inherent bias in the media. If black conservatives are under the spotlight, it is because of the special Hell which they occupy as ideological traitors to their race.
Cain is being treated no differently than a white Presidential candidate would be in the same situation, and black conservatives in general do not receive different treatment. If a white Supreme Court candidate nominee acted inexcusably to a subordinate and then gave perjurious testimony, he would also have been vilified. If Brian Williams said that he doesn’t want to fly with Muslims, he would have been fired from NBC as quickly as Jimmy the Greek was fired from CBS for saying that blacks are bred to be better athletes. Black conservatives who don’t misbehave — such as Alan Keyes or Allen West — aren’t treated differently than white conservatives. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice got plenty of criticism for the debacle in Iraq, but so did George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Nor are black liberals who say stupid things given a free pass: just ask Jesse Jackson how his career went after his Hymietown remarks.
Sexual harassment is coercive and involves aggression and intimidation, while extra-marital sex is consensual. Say what you want about John Edwards, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, David Vitter, Larry Craig, or Wilbur Mills, but the only similarity their acts have with sexual harassment is that they all fit broadly under the rubric of sex scandals. One is coercive and the other is not; one is legal and the other is not.
Sexual harassment ranges from telling a woman how charming her charms are up to demanding sex as a condition of continued employment. As for what Herman Cain did or didn’t do: we don’t know. Maybe he did nothing at all, as unlikely as that may be. Similarly, at first it looked like DSK was guilty, then he looked innocent, and now: we don’t know.
The problem with Cain — aside from the fact that he is uninformed, contradictory, and often buffoonish — is that he lied and got caught doing so. First he had no recollection of what happened, then he seemed to vaguely recall that something happened but he didn’t know what, then he miraculously recalled what happened but it was no big deal, and now he just refuses to talk about it. Derb completely ignores the dissembling, and instead pretends that the story is a non-story because there was (apparently) no physical assault. As with Clinton, the story was not that he was schtupping Monica Lewinsky, but that he was evasive afterwards. Cain explained his convenient failure of memory as the (non-existent) distinction between a settlement and an agreement. For a conservative movement that loudly (and justifiably) lambasted Bill Clinton for opining on what the meaning of “is” is: instant karma’s gonna get you.
Needless to say, if a white liberal was accused of sexual harassment and then lied about it, he would have received the same treatment. Blaming Cain’s troubles on the media which reported them, or stating that he is under special scrutiny because he is a black conservative, form an absurdity too great to be insisted upon.
I’m not going to debate this one with you any further here, Peter; life is too short. Readers are invited to look around and make up their own minds.
Well, readers can make up their own minds, but my facts and logic are unassailable, and my argument is impregnable. Hence no thinking person could possibly reach a contrary conclusion.
Cain is “uninformed”?
I’m just a tad bit skeptical – not saying I can read the fellow’s mind, mind – and I might not present the actual quote precisely.
“China is interested in developing a nuclear capability. Aircraft carriers…”
I just thought the first time I watched the clip, Cain was referring to China’s pretty well documented, efforts to build their own nuclear powered carrier. Can’t recall the reporter doing the interview – I usually (I think) would if the reporter was a person I associated with nuclear powered shipbuilding.
Of course I could’ve been wrong. Cain hasn’t seemed too focused on clarifying – seems distracted by something.
I’m sure that he will be better informed once he returns from his fact-finding mission to Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.
I hope he stays in the race until the end: there hasn’t been a Presidential campaign this much fun since Pat Paulsen ran. Anybody who dismisses criticism of his policies with the blithe remark that “the problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect” can’t be all bad. I’m secretly hoping he runs as a third party candidate on a ticket with Kinky Friedman.
“I hope he stays in the race until the end: there hasn’t been a Presidential campaign this much fun since Pat Paulsen ran.”
Ditto Peter.
Most of the times (referencing our now “four years less one day” political office seeking) I’m glad I gave my TV away. But this one’s diff’urnt. Only thing ‘d make it better would be if I could get some of whatever Rick Perry smokes.
If people like Malcom, posessed of an enormous intellect fall prey to the Tea Party siren song, we are lost; unless, of course, there are more people like the one eyed man to douse their misguided ideas.
Uh oh. If my Mom piles on, then it’s Malcolm versus the mishpucha.
Hmmm…. the presence of intelligent conservatives means “we are lost”?
Guess that depends on who or what “we” are…
it’s not surprising that many on the Left would run with a leak about Cain
I’m not sure why you imagine that this information would need to be “leaked”, or that it would be leaked by a Republican rival. Reporters are perfectly capable of digging into candidates backgrounds all on their own. Or the woman in question might well have gone directly to the media, without any candidate being involved. Lastly, the Democrats (non journalist arm) opposition research may have dug up this information.
The idea that it originated with any Republican candidate is pure conjecture.
One thing which conservatives excel in is self-victimization. If conservatives or their policies are portrayed in an unflattering light, it’s because of an inherent bias in the media.
Which is clearly preposterous. Bias in the media? No doubt those paranoid conservatives will next be imagining that the Democrats in the media are secretly coordinating their message via private bulletin boards! A “Journo List”, so to speak.
Obviously only the mentally unbalanced would engage in such deranged thinking.
A group of like-minded journalists — not all journalists, but a subset of journalists — had an online discussion group to go over the topics of the day. Proof positive that a monolithic press corps is nothing more than a bunch of puppets parroting the Party Line: a list-serve.
Do you think that the folks at Fox News never talk to those at Red State or Eric Cantor’s office? The daily press briefings which the Bush White House and the RNC sent to talk radio hosts, the Murdoch empire, and the right wing blogosphere with the day’s talking points? That never happened?
Not that there is anything wrong with any of this: it’s a free country, and political leaders have as much right as everyone else to get their views known. If John Boehner wants to get his message out via Erik Erikson or Nancy Pelosi wants to get hers out through HuffPo: it’s all good. The only relevant question is whether news reporting which is presented as being objective is fair and balanced, or we deceive & you believe.
If you want to make a case that the media have a liberal bias, you have the burden of providing specific examples which show that news reporting was deliberately distorted to achieve a partisan objective, and you have to present these examples in sufficient number to make a reasoned argument. Absent evidence to support your conclusion, you are simply voicing assertions which are lacking in substance or justification.
Good old Fox News. If it did not exist liberals would have to invent it. It’s their reflexive response to any and all observations of liberal media bias.
If you want to make a case that the media have a liberal bias, you have the burden of providing specific examples which show that news reporting was deliberately distorted to achieve a partisan objective, and you have to present these examples in sufficient number to make a reasoned argument
With you as the judge who must be convinced, of course. Luckily for me, you are not biased either!
Yes, Severn, pure conjecture it is, based only on the notion that it would probably be to the Left’s advantage to hold off on such a story until Cain had secured the nomination. But I have no idea where the flurry of items bubbled up from, and was just thinking aloud.
As I write, another, far more substantive accusation has just hit the airwaves, by the way.
“Mike”, are you Peter’s mom? (I wasn’t aware that was your nickname).
Lovely to see you here, and I hope you are well. Please give my best to Myles.
And you needn’t worry — I haven’t sold my soul to the devil. Just trying to keep a great nation from going down the drain.
Peter, I can’t possibly imagine that a discussion with you here about media bias would be productive. So as tempting as it is to begin a long thread about what went on at Journolist, etc., or about self-admitted bias from liberal journalists themselves, and so on, I’ll just let it go.
I will just say that it would require almost superhuman control, objectivity, and self-awareness for any passionately engaged journalist or editor. whether conservative or liberal, not to let his political bias creep into his work, and so I don’t expect truly unbiased reporting from either side. Given that most journalists (and Hollywood types, academics, etc.) self-identify as liberals, an overall liberal tilt in the media content they produce and influence would therefore be unsurprising, and in my opinion clearly exists.
For readers who wish to review the matter themselves, there are lots of other sites who have done all the spadework, for example the Media Research Center. A Google search on “media bias” will return plenty of material.
Just trying to be fair and balanced here, you understand. We report, you decide.
I think the fallacy of that argument is that liberals who are in the media are so cowed and timid that they over compensate to avoid even the slightest hint of bias. Hence Bush’s march to war in Iraq was never seriously challenged by the media, while Whitewater was on the front page of the Times day after day.
I promise to get to the Media Research Center as soon as I’m finished with Media Matters.
Well, a response like that — insisting that the MSM are so “cowed” (by persons unknown, I guess, given the preponderance of self-identified liberals in all parts of media and academia) as to be devoid of even the slightest hint of bias — illustrates exactly why I thought it would be unproductive to discuss this here.
They sure don’t seem “cowed” to me, but I guess I must be biased.