Politico taking on Jerry Springer mentality

Mandy,

The reporters are looking at the facts, there was an accusation made in the 1990's. That is relevant. They confirmed the accusation. As well, there was a settlement made. That is a fact too. The reporters' job is not to ensure the accusation had merit (a settlement, though, assumes that there is guilt or that they felt needed to be addressed). That is what they reported. They reported these facts and should have reported these facts.

Thus, you are expecting the reporters to ensure these were viable. They ensured accuracy in what they reported. Again, they did their job and it fits the reporter's ethic.

 

I don't know if there is no evidence of wrongdoing. I do know that Cain made a settlement. I know that businesses do that to protect themselves from possibly losing more in the court of law, but since this reporting was done, Cain admitted to the Politico Report, admitted a settlement, but offered no evidence that this was a baseless accusation.

Now, I personally believe Cain, but a settlement for an innocent person is enough to cause suspicion. If he were Obama, people would be asking for his resignation.

Because of the settlement, we can only hear one side of the story. Thus, it may come down to whether you actually believe Cain or not. Some will and others won't. I do believe Cain, but if all the evidence we have is that he was accused and a settlement was made, I suspect some will not believe him.

 

If Cain did no wrong, this will be seen as a hatchet job and might well help him in the long run. If Cain is hiding something it will likely come out and damage his presidential aspirations.

My problem with Cain is not this story, it's his 999 plan which I believe will harm those near the bottom of the economic ladder.

 

I have addressed most of your objections in a previous post. First, the story probably is incomplete, but it is accurate. Most stories are incomplete because there is a limitation of their resources to gain all the evidence. The reporters are not onmiscient and should report what they found. In that they reported accurately, the news source upheld their standards.

There were sexual harassment charges, that is not feeling "uncomfortable." The settlement and the initial statement by Cain said it was a sexual harassment claim and they settled.

This is actually textbook situation on how to do it right. No, the reporters are not onmiscient, they did not know every detail of the situation, but the details they knew were accurate and substantial.

This attacking Politico is a playbook out of the Clinton attack book. In my opinion, how they handled this situation is enough to not vote for him.

 

Also, note, that there are two different reports by two different women in two different aspects of Cain's professional career. I agree with Karl Rove, there should be more information released. Cain just saying these are "baseless" is not enough. Even Rove believed he did little to alleviate the situation.

As well, some people wanted the news outlets to report things they could not verify and they bash them for not reporting those things. I would criticize the media in both instances on either side for reporting what they cannot confirm as accurate. If they could not confirm the accusations were "baseless" (which has not been confirmed even now) or other details, they should not run that part of the story.

What they could confirm they ran. They did what was right.

I think it is just like Republicans to attack the messenger first. What was reported was accurate, now present your side of the story. Yet, don't attack accurate reporting.

 

I know you want to, but you cannot just state that reality is what you desire it to be. Every time things are stated that you don't agree with, you just dismiss it. People who live in the real world don't have this luxury.

 

According to an interview by Karl Rove, this report was not available. Normally, these are sealed. So, if you have a reputable source that shows this agreement or that it was public, please provide it. Internal investigations, and I have helped in these investigations when I worked for a certain company. They are closed.

The settlement is probably secret too. I have never worked on a settlement, but usually they are not a matter of public record.

If you have information that they had these reports from a reputable source, I would love to read it. Oh, the settlement probably does not have the results of any internal investigation. That is probably in the company's files and not open for public disclosure. The few I have participated in, I cannot even hint on what happened.

I don't know where the original report is on Politico. I read it originally.

On this board, the attacks on the news media happened first and several "conservative commentators" are attacking. I find it absolutely inexcusable.

 

This is a new story. Yesterday, I read articles saying that if people can put a face to the accuser, it could end his presidential race, unless she is completely unreliable.

Say bye, bye to Cain.

 

Had Obama had two women file sexual harassment charges against him in the 1990's and those charges were settled with cash payouts and non disclosure clauses, would it be something the press should report?

I suspect everyone, D and R's alike, would want to know.

Why is Cain getting special treatment?

I think the answer to that question is that the "anybody but Romney" crowd is getting panicky.

 

I agree, this would be news by anyone else and it should be an issue.

I am wondering who will lead the polls next.