Politico taking on Jerry Springer mentality

I think they had an obligation to release what they uncovered. This is what the media should do. Unlike other news agencies who dig up stuff and sit on it until the "opportune time", they released it quickly and this will allow for the Cain camp to respond. Had politico sat on the story until right before Iowa, I would say this was a hit job. Yet, they did the right thing in verifying there was an accusation and that there was a settlement. Having done that, they were right to report their information.

I think this is an example of what you should do as a reporter and how reporters should investigate and release information after verifying the information.

 

They may not have known there was no evidence because such information is probably kept from them.

No, this was not trash reporting, this was good reporting. They reported what they could verify, they could not verify if there was or was not any evidence.

I think they were responsible in their reporting. They could and did verify what they could and reported what they could verify.

They were responsible and I do not blame them for the reporting. What they reported was true. What has come out since has only been a character witness and the testimony of Cain. I do not think they produced "official" reports of the dealings.

Good reporting, now it is up to Cain to show he is not guilty. Attacking politico is not the way to do this. Attacking the source is what Clinton would do, and would cause me to lose more respect of the Candidate.

 

The problem with your statement is that this is not trashy journalism. Politico confirmed the accusations, confirmed a settlement and thus were reporting fact.

If I were an editor, I would have run the story. If, on the other hand, I found out that this news entity sat on the story, I would have accused them of hiding a story.

This is not trash journalism. They reported facts, they probably had no way of verifying if these were credible accusations, but they had enough factual information to report. In fact, I do not think we have any hard evidence showing they were not credible.

Thus, they should have run the story. This is not trash journalism, this is good journalism.

BTW, when I heard the report my initial thought was, "Poor guy, they are going after him like they did Clarence Thomas." However, I do not attack politico, I think they did what a journalist should have done and I would have made the same decision.

 

Reporting is not about "innocent until proven guilty", that is a requirement of the law to prove guilt, not reporting to decide to run the report. Reporting is about reporting the facts as best as they can discover. An editor has to decide whether this was (1) fact and (2) significant. The facts of the case were accurate by Politico thus we can conclude that they reported facts. This issue is significant in that if true would sway millions of votes. Thus, no matter how much you want to attack Politico, they were right in their reporting. If they were wrong, Cain would have a defamation lawsuit and I would encourage him to sue them. However, we know that Politico was right.

BTW, I mentioned Clinton in that he attacked the source rather than deal with his crime. Instead of dealing with what he did and did not do, he attacked those who reported facts. In both cases, it is a shame.

 

They didn't post an incomplete story. They verified what they could verify. Rather, there has been no proof presented otherwise, just a few statements.

This was an accurate story. An accurate story does not have to be complete because stories, like in other reporting, is a continuing development issue. They reported what they could verify at the time. That is what they should do.

Yes, I do think a Presidential Candidate does have to answer for these allegations. I would hate for a Presidential Candidate to ignore these issues and not put forth evidence of his character after these accurate accusations were made.

This is not trash reporting, this fits within the standard journalistic ethos. I believe attacking Politico is truly the bigger problem in this issue. I said it when Clinton attacked Star in the 90's, and I say it again today. If they are accurate, you answer these inquiries. That is a part of reporting and the political process.

 

Hopefully this is just the beginning of the end of Cain's running for the presidency.

 

Who do you support?

BTW, I don't mind people doing poorly if I don't like them, but if this is baseless, I do not want it to be this issue. I would rather issues of substance.

 

You are correct. This style of politicking has been taking place from both sides for a long time now. There was loads of unsubstantiated rubbish posted and never retracted about President Obama. Sadly this cancer seems to affect all sides of political debate.

 

Is there any question that trash politicking is not new. Another example is the smears against Gov Palin. I am by no means a fan of hers, but hate the junk that was spewed out. You enter the arena you know you are in for this kind of nonsense from those who oppose your views.

Is this not like implying that the Obama's were forced to surrender their law licences for some unknown and unspecified act?

Politics is dirty. The attack in Gov Perry is nothing special.

 

The difference with this report, unlike some other reports, is that they substantiated that it was true. As well, this report was substanative, whereas some reports were not. I think they were right to report this.

 

If I had to choose a republican candidate today, I would support Romney. I would not vote for Obama, and may not vote at all. It is, however, a long way till the election, so anything can happen between now and then,.

 

Of what? There is no evidence of wrongdoing and you want him to prove he's not guilty.

Ridiculous.