Ticomaya wrote:blatham wrote:OK everyone. I want you to follow me through this one, because it is truly a classic....
I thought what happened in one's personal life was private? Isn't that what the Democrats were all screaming when Clinton was being accused of lying under oath? Not to mention all his tawdry affairs, including his sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky outside the Oval Office. So if the point of your "classic" post, Blatham, is to denigrate Ms. Marsden, I don't know her nor do I much care if her reputation is further besmirched by your in-depth research into her character, but I do find it a bit at odds with how the Democrats in this country insisted Clinton be treated in the wake of the multiple sexual misconduct allegations, and his admission of lying. Was Clinton incapable of performing the duties of his high office because he had these extramarial sexual escapades, or because he committed a crime while president?
Please feel free to correct my misunderstanding.
"Correcting your understanding" would be a rare pleasure. But we all wish rare pleasures were more plentiful.
Category one - 'What's good for goose/gander' arguments.
Besmirching character ad hominems are a staple of this new breed of rightwing media pundits, ie Coulter. (If you like, we could randomly pick, say, three columns from the lady and analyze against, say, Krugman or anyone else you might choose. But I wouldn't advise any such empirical test, because you wouldn't win it.) So I could launch into that one, but I won't, because it isn't what is important.
A person's private sexual behavior IS irrelevant (given the standard caveats; age, agreement, etc) for public office
or for reporting. The exception, it seems to me, relates to hypocrisy, eg the southern preacher who frequently bemoaned the decline in sexual morality and then got caught with a prostitute. Such hypocrisy tells us about an individual's integrity, lack of. That's important in either politician or reporter because our trust in their honesty properly decreases. That's the valid complaint with Rush re drugs,
not that he became addicted, but that he kept this secret while at the same time suggesting drug users ought to be taken out back and shot. Which brings us to...
Category two...honesty and trust
This quality IS important in either a politician or a reporter. That Clinton lied about Monica is relevant. That is the element in that case which is relevant.
In the Marsden case, there is deception on the false name, and in the earlier SFU hearings. Whether she likes oral sex is of no ethical relevance. Unlike Clinton, we know not very much about Marsden, but the small amount we do know isn't encouraging in terms of truthfulness.
But also, we have two instances of what would properly be considered stalking, and that speaks to issues unrelated to what folks do in bed.
OK? Those seem to be the fundamental and relevant differences between the two cases you bring forward.
Now, when I set out to find out more regarding JW's pasted article, I wasn't looking for sexual goodies. I was seeking to demonstrate the deplorable level of journalism found in so much of the rightwing media, such that 'journalism' is quite an improper term to use. It is commonly opinion, and very often egregiously ill-informed opinion, and almost always designed to forward a singular viewpoint at the cost of anything like objectivity or balance. Further, I was seeking to demonstrate how these voices are inter-linked such that they provide, to use a very apt cliche, a 'echo chamber' of ideas and facts/opinions/slurs/erroneous claims.
Marsden is called upon by Bill O'Reilly and others (as with the author of the original column JW quoted) as what? Dependable and ethical and trained reporter? A knowledgeable and studied authority on American/Canadian politics? She's neither, by a long shot.
She is a staple figure in the right wing media...an attractive female guaranteed to forward right wing ideology.
That's another thread .....
