MuddyPolitics's picture

    Are Herman Cain’s right-wing defenders exempt from the journalism code of ethics?

    By MuddyPolitics on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 1:29pm |

     

    Sharon Bialek, the fourth woman to come forward alleging that Cain sexually harassed her (and the first to report what sounds like assault) is not only the latest “alleged” victim of Cain, she’s the latest victim of Cain’s conservative apologists.
     
    To be fair to Cain, it’s possible that this sexual harassment scandal (or four) is nothing more than the usual blowback any politically powerful man should expect from a disgruntled former co-worker (or four), and that the claims (all four of them) are indeed, as Cain believes, nothing more than the political handiwork of a disgruntled fellow presidential candidate – Rick Perry.
     
    At this point, it doesn’t really matter. Cain has no intentions of admitting publicly that any of this took place. It does not appear likely that he will apologize to these women, let alone acknowledge their claims. (And why should he? It was the ’90s, after all. Everybody was doing it!)
     
    The media circus surrounding this scandal isn’t likely to fade. More women are likely to come forward, and Cain will likely continue to protest how journalists do their jobs. But Cain, and the (four) victims of his extra-marital sexual proclivities, his advances, harassment and apparent assault are not the only story.
     
    As disgusting as these accusations are, the conservative media’s response is almost worse.
     
    The card-carrying character assassins of the Republican sound machine are already jumping into their expected roles as contract-obligated defenders of the misogynists within the Republican Party, and they’re hard at work painting the “alleged” victims as nothing more than two-dollar whores looking to make a name for themselves and to get their picture in The National Enquirer.
     
    The counter-assault is now in full swing.
     
    Sean Hannity said after the news story broke (by Politico) that it is “baseless,” a “hit piece” and a “smear.” Dick Morris, himself no virgin to sex scandals, called Bialek “a gold-digger” who’s looking for a book deal, a film deal or “a spread in Playboy” magazine. And Cal Thomas seems convinced this is part of a larger Democratic Party conspiracy to “drive a steak” through the hearts of anyone who challenged President Obama.
     
    But perhaps even more offensive than that, if that’s possible, was Rush Limbaugh, who instantly turned the accuser into a porn star simply based on his chosen pronunciation of her name: “Gloria Allred says her name is Bialek, as in (slurp, slurp) – buy a lick. There’s no ‘R’ in the name so you can’t say it’s ‘Rent-a-lick’…I don’t know if Ms. Buy-a-lick likes scented candles or not. I don’t know. How’s that relevant? That hasn’t been mentioned. We don’t know if she’s been to Happy Valley…we’re still waiting for all of these details to be forthcoming.”
     
    If a little girl comes forward and tells school administrators that she was grabbed and groped on several occasions in inappropriate places by a boy in her class; if she says, in a voice so soft and so quiet it’s almost inaudible, that she only recently came forward to report it because she was scared, embarrassed, and because she thought she would get into trouble, should the school administrators brush it off, make fun of the little girl, mock her name, tell her she dresses to provocatively (at 11 years old), and defend the “alleged” perpetrator as the victim of some liberal feminist smear campaign? Should this girl be called a gold-digger, a publicity whore?
     
    Would it at all be appropriate if the media, upon reporting this story, were to make any of these claims?
     
    I ask only because the story of the little girl is true. It’s true every day in every city across the country. Sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, molestation…these things actually happen, daily. In this girl’s case, she’s a minor, and therefore safe from the punditry wolves.
     
    But isn’t it nice to know that if the same thing were to happen to her as an adult, she would be mocked, undermined and attacked in the media, on television and the radio as a con artist and a liar without a shred of evidence to disprove anything she said.
     
    On Sunday, Cain’s campaign sent out passages from the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics. I wonder, did he send it to Limbaugh and Morris, Hannity and the Fox News? Particularly the parts about showing good taste and compassion for those adversely affected by news coverage? 

     

    Comments

    I am just as convinced that Cain is innocent of these charges as I was that Bill Clinton was innocent of the numerous sexual harassment/assault charges brought against him. I.e., legally he should obviously be presumed innocent; practically, he's most likely guilty on some of the charges.

    I am curious to know whether there are those who think he should be treated differently than they think Clinton should've been treated.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 3:18pm

    V Athiest: I am curious to know whether there are those who think he should be treated differently than they think Clinton should've been treated.

    I am curious to know if you know how Clinton was treated?

    Federal independent counsel (Ken Starr) investigated Clinton for over 5 years, spent over $70 million (for comparison, the Bush administration asked for $3 million for the 9/11 Commission investigation), and Clinton was impeached by the House. Some say the budget and the charges were politically motivated, your thoughts?

    Cain should be treated much better.

    Congress should appoint a prosecutor with a budget limited to less than half that of the Clinton investigation, with a final date for concluding the investigation, say $30 million and three years.


    by NCD on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 5:38pm

    I am quite aware of how Clinton was treated. I'm old enough to remember it unfolding (I was 22 in 1992), with a drip-drip-drip much like what Cain's currently experiencing during the 1992 campaign season. If Cain were to get elected, who knows if history would repeat itself? My point is not to exonerate Cain nor Clinton's treatment, but rather to suggest certain parallels. If it was not appropriate for Clinton, it's not appropriate for Cain (precedent be damned), and if it is appropriate for Cain, then that same level of treatment (which Clinton was getting in '92) was appropriate for Clinton.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 6:57pm

    Clinton's affair was between consenting adults.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 7:20pm

    I'm guessing you're referring to Monica Lewinsky. I'm not. I'm referring to the allegations during the '92 campaign, which are as proven as the allegations against Cain.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 7:24pm

    5 payouts on sexual harassment is a bit more proven than in-court proceedings showing the witness to have lied.

    "U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright's decision to toss out the Paula Jones case on summary judgment underscores a fact that should have been obvious from the outset: the case always was a political device to destroy President Clinton and negate the electoral results of 1992 and 1996."

     "Over time, even Jones's lawyers came to doubt elements of her story. Her first lawyer, Daniel Traylor, quit and later objected to additions that Jones made as the case evolved. Her second set of lawyers quit, too, emphasizing strategic differences but also citing unspecified "illegal or unjust" actions by their client. In Esquire, Brock noted that "one of Jones's key legal advisers told me that he didn't necessarily believe her story of sexual harassment." "

    You can refresh your memory of the wonderful 90's here: http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/clinto12.html

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:22pm

    Bottom line, whatever it is, starting wars, lying, sex, outing agents, deficits, it's OK if Republicans do it. 'Everybody does that stuff'.  However, only Democrats are to be held to account. This mindset, in fact, seems a motivation for many posts here at Dag.


    by NCD on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:24pm

    Wow, what a complete load of hogwash. I said that they both should be treated the same, and you twist that to be that I said that Republicans should be exempted. It sounds to me like what you're really saying is that it's OK if Democrats do it.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:30pm

    VA, I have noted Republicans have a very long memory for unseemly stuff Democrats have been accused of, while a very short recollection of their own bad 'stuff'.

    This is a trait almost universally present among Republicans, and you seem to display it on this thread.

    Perhaps you can enlighten us on your prescription for what to do with Cain without bringing up 20 year old stuff about Clinton.


    by NCD on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:42pm

    Do you remember when I said, way back when (nearly six hours ago!):

    …legally he should obviously be presumed innocent; practically, he's most likely guilty …

    So, to answer your question on what to do, it depends on who the implied "we" is. I don't plan on doing anything. As I've already said, I think he's probably guilty. If he is, it'll come out if he continues to get significant traction.

    The nice thing is, that this thread is so short, your previous assertion that I in any way suggested that it's OK if Republicans do it (AKA IOKIYAR) is laid bare. I hope you can see that. In so doing, perhaps you'll reconsider your position that:

    This mindset, in fact, seems a motivation for many posts here at Dag.

    I posit that the problem isn't the posts at Dag, it's the filter through which you interpret them. Anyone who knows me, knows how important it is for me to keep as much power as possible out of Republican hands. Your assertion is as laughable as me asserting that Cheney is a good man or that Bush is a smart one.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 8:59pm

    Thanks for the clarification on your view of the GOP.

    I would go beyond your belief that George W. Bush was 'not smart'.

    I agree with the former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferenccz, who prosecuted 22 Nazi officers after WW2, and more recently did work for the International Court in the Hague, that Bush should stand trial for the 'supreme international crime' of starting an aggressive war.

    Aman dismissed that sentiment along with Bush accountability, citing Congressional actions, intelligence failures and that Bush was elected, Genghis opined that invading a peaceful Iraq in 2003 was, in effect, business as usual for the US, comparing it to Vietnam. In Vietnam we entered a war that had been going for 10 years, on the side of an existing government and army.  Iraq was, of course, at peace until Bush sent our forces in, which is the crime Ferenccz refers to, initiating 'aggressive war'.  (Supporting the losing side in a civil war that you should have stayed out of to begin with is not comparable.)


    by NCD on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 11:06pm

    And Cal Thomas seems convinced this is part of a larger Democratic Party conspiracy to “drive a steak” through the hearts of anyone who challenged President Obama.

    I would certainly hope there is such a plan.

    If not we better get one.

    And while we are at it; could not someone come up with a plan to drive a steak through Cal Thomas?


    by Richard Day on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 4:41pm

    Agree, maybe some wolfbane for the hate radio crowd.  We could certainly expand the list beyond Cain and Thomas.

    Maybe the GOP can search the Appalachian Trail for their next candidate,now that the pizza guy isn't looking so good.


    by NCD on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 5:50pm

    I didn't propose that, exactly, but I've politely requested that Cal Thomas retire once before >> http://www.muddypolitics.com/2011/09/cal-thomas-retire-already.html


    by MuddyPolitics on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 10:23pm

    Anne Coulter is the winger that deserves to be razzed the most with this. Because she is a fan of Cain and has already played the Clarence Thomas high tech lynching card on this. And because she also owes her celebrity to proudly being one of the "vast right wing conspiracy" supporting Paula Jones' case (some fun quotes @ that wikipedia link, like: I just wanted to help Paula. I really think Paula Jones is a hero. I don't think I could have taken the abuse she came under.) There's ample video in cable TV archives of her going on and on and on about the awful abuse of power by such sexual harassers as Bill Clinton, what horrible people such people are, and how they don't deserve to be in government, etc. (virtually several times a week for many months, as I recall.)


    by artappraiser on Tue, 11/08/2011 - 9:59pm

    Latest Comments