Politico taking on Jerry Springer mentality

[mandym]

Politico has dug up an age old accusation of two women who made an accusation against Cain for sexual harassment. Although it was investigated and found to be baseless politico prints the story without naming the source.

Quite like the Jerry Springer show. Get everyone riled up over nothing. Of course politico is not proud of themselves. What a joke. And the original story posted has now left their site and they only show their articles about Cain's response which they continue to use to bash him. They have no credibility.

 

[Ruiz]

Politico has dug up an age old accusation of two women who made an accusation against Cain for sexual harassment. Although it was investigated and found to be baseless politico prints the story without naming the source.

Quite like the Jerry Springer show. Get everyone riled up over nothing. Of course politico is not proud of themselves. What a joke. And the original story posted has now left their site and they only show their articles about Cain's response which they continue to use to bash him. They have no credibility.

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.

 

[mandym]

Then they also should have reported that there was no evidence found to support it. Nope, this was a trash story. In fact there was no need to report it at all.

 

[Ruiz]

Then they also should have reported that there was no evidence found to support it. Nope, this was a trash story.

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.

 

[mandym]

Such stories are trash and have no place in credible journalism.

 

[Ruiz]

Such stories are trash and have no place in credible journalism.

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.

 

[Salty]

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

The "evidence" is unavailable because the company settled with the females. Part of the agreement is that all info is sealed.

... now it is up to Cain to show he is not guilty. ....

What happened to presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Show me some FACTS that Cain is guilty.

I am only guessing - but the females were probably white and trying to make an example out of Cain. Could be all he did was call them "honey" or some other atrocious name! Could be that he put his arm around the shoulder of them in a totally innocent manner.

If it was as bad as the mag says it might be - then why did the females settle? They should have fought it and disposed of a male chauvinist pig!


You mentioned Clinton - well there were many instances of his indiscretions.

Until there are some verified facts, this is a non issue. Now if Cain harassed other females, they probably would have come out of the woodwork already.

 

[mandym]

What happened to presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Show me some FACTS that Cain is guilty.

What a shame that question has to be asked.

 

[Ruiz]

The "evidence" is unavailable because the company settled with the females. Part of the agreement is that all info is sealed.




What happened to presumed innocent until prov en guilty.

Show me some FACTS that Cain is guilty.

I am only guessing - but the females were probably white and trying to make an example out of Cain. Could be all he did was call them "honey" or some other atrocious name! Could be that he put his arm around the shoulder of them in a totally innocent manner.

If it was as bad as the mag says it might be - then why did the females settle? They should have fought it and disposed of a male chauvinist pig!


You mentioned Clinton - well there were many instances of his indiscretions.

Until there are some verified facts, this is a non issue. Now if Cain harassed other females, they probably would have come out of the woodwork already.

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.

 

[mandym]

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.

You said it was up to him to prove his innocence. Anyway they posted an incomplete story. Its trash

 

[Ruiz]

You said it was up to him to prove his innocence. Anyway they posted an incomplete story. Its trash

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.

 

[Robert Snow]

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

 

[Ruiz]

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Quite like the Jerry Springer show. Get everyone riled up over nothing. Of course politico is not proud of themselves. What a joke. And the original story posted has now left their site and they only show their articles about Cain's response which they continue to use to bash him. They have no credibility.

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.

 

[mandym]

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.

You just cannot help yourself can you?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

 

[Ruiz]

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.

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.

 

[Robert Snow]

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.

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,.

 

[mandym]

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.

The only truth here is there was an accusation. It is false that the accusation was unfounded. But they failed to report that. It is trash.

 

[carpro]

Good reporting, now it is up to Cain to show he is not guilty.

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

Ridiculous.