Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy"
You're comparing what O'Reilly did, with what MSNBC did. But what they did was the OPPOSITE of one another.
O'Reilly refused to comment on the Edwards story when it was just unfounded accusations. MSNBC was quite happy to run stories about Cain before anything was confirmed.
|
I was referring to this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
If Cain was a white liberal, this isn't as big a story. The major networks sat on the John Edwards story for so long, they waited for the National Inquirer to break the news.
|
So regarding the EDWARDS case O'Reilly was being a good journalist; the 'Major Networks' sat on the story?
As far as CAIN goes, I said it above. There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment. This makes it fair game. If Cain really thought those settlements would not come out during a campaign for the white house then he is a moron, as are his political aides/advisers.
So Fox news and or O'Reilly specifically mentioned nothing about the Cain story at all, because no one came out in person and it wasn't 'confirmed'?
If not, then who is sitting on stories then to further a political agenda?