Larry, just admit it

[bjorn_skurj]

Paper: 8 Men Claim Encounters With Craig

 

3 hours ago

 

BOISE, Idaho (AP)

[Mr. Kinsley]

"...encounters involving the conservative Republican, who opposes same-sex marriage and has a strong record against gay rights."

 

I don't see anything contradictory there. He doesn't want gays to be able to marry, just to do him in the bathroom stall. If they all settled down and adopted babies, where would that leave Larry? He'd be stuck in the airport bathroom with a boner for weeks on end.

[mountain bed]

Even if the allegations of Craig's "scandal" are false (as he claims) there are few Senators I loathe more than him. His voting record is horrifying.

 

Shameful Larry, just shameful.

[boywiththorninside]

I'm sure the Idaho Statesman feels its actions are justified by Craig's voting record, but, still, their reporting has a Sexual McCarthyism feel to it. It kind of reminds me of all the right-wing claims against Clinton over his alleged misadventures with women. The right-wing felt partially justified in championing the claims of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick, et al., because of Clinton's proclaimed support for women's rights issues. Besides just having a knee-jerk hate for Clinton, they felt he was a hypocrite when it came to women and women's issues and that he should be exposed for this.

 

I was never comfortable with how the Clinton stuff was handled, and I'm not comfortable with the Idaho Statesman's reporting on the Craig issue. They seem to have a bigger hard-on for bringing down and humiliating Craig than Craig has ever had in any bathroom stall.

[cryptique]

Can't say I have any sympathy for him. We're all hypocrites to some degree, but Craig's hypocrisy affects government policy. If anything, this is anti-McCarthyism.

 

Is the Statesman a tad overzealous here? Maybe. But I'll take a press that's actually willing to investigate some stuff over one that acts as GOP stenographers any day.

[IATTBYB]

The newspaper acknowledged that its report was not based on definitive evidence but said it also found no evidence to disprove the accounts of the four identified men. It said it reviewed the senator's travel records, which put him where the sex is alleged to have taken place, and did background checks on those making the allegations.

 

An honest question to the journalists who frequent VC - Is this the ethical standard that reputable journalists and editors adhere to when making the decision to publish? Obviously Sen. Craig is a public figure and the standard to establish defamation is extremely onerous, but this article appears to be little more than rumor mongering and muck-raking.

 

That said, I can't think of a better victim for rumor mongering and muck-raking than the distinguished gentleman from Idaho.

[boywiththorninside]

That said, I can't think of a better victim for rumor mongering and muck-raking than the distinguished gentleman from Idaho.

 

That's how the right-wing felt about Clinton. There was no one better to spread rumors about. I think it was called the politics of personal destruction in the 90's. It was looked down upon.

[boywiththorninside]

Craig's hypocrisy affects government policy. If anything, this is anti-McCarthyism.

 

The right alleged Clinton was a hypocrite on women's issues. Clinton didn't have any control over government policy regarding women's issues? He didn't appoint people to a court which could potentially decide on certain issues sometimes considered important to women?

 

I'm not looking to get into a big debate, and I certainly don't want to defend Craig. The reporting here and how it is apparently "justified" just makes me a little uncomfortable.

[quarter23cd]

I like your avatar.

[Sir Stewart]

I like your avatar.

That's what I was gonna say!

[cryptique]

The right alleged Clinton was a hypocrite on women's issues.

So, Clinton's a hypocrite on women's issues because he gets a blowjob from an intern? Hmmm. Yeah, I can see how that equates to Craig being a hypocrite because he has gay sex in public restrooms while doing everything he can to undermine gay rights.

 

Apples and oranges.

[boywiththorninside]

When did I ever mention Lewinsky?

 

Clinton supported sexual harassment laws while being accused of sexual harassment himself - the aforementioned Broderick, Jones, Willey. Craig opposed gay rights while being accused of being a closeted homosexual who repeatedly propositioned other men. In each case, public political support seemed to contradict the speculated private act. This seems like oranges and oranges to me, but whatever. Proceed with the witch hunt. He's a Republican.

[cryptique]

When did I ever mention Lewinsky?

OK, yeah, that was a poor assumption on my part.

 

Clinton supported sexual harassment laws while being accused of sexual harassment himself - the aformentioned Broderick, Jones, Willey. Craig opposed gay rights while being accused of being a closeted homosexual who repeatedly propositioned other men. In each case, public political support seemed to contradict the speculated private act. This seems like oranges and oranges to me, but whatever. Proceed with the witch hunt. He's a Republican.

We'll see how it plays out.

 

Craig was one of the high-horse Republicans during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. It's ridiculous to think that his later downfall for similar (alleged) conduct shouldn't be reported.

[bjorn_skurj]

An honest question to the journalists who frequent VC - Is this the ethical standard that reputable journalists and editors adhere to when making the decision to publish? Obviously Sen. Craig is a public figure and the standard to establish defamation is extremely onerous, but this article appears to be little more than rumor mongering and muck-raking.

 

That said, I can't think of a better victim for rumor mongering and muck-raking than the distinguished gentleman from Idaho.

Two, three people saying something is one thing. EIGHT people saying it, and with nothing showing up to discredit their accounts, would probably get somebody the death penalty in a trial and is certainly good enough to hang a news story on.

Sen. Craig is a liar and hypocrite. Do you not think his constituents ought to know that?

[Calexico]

Only eight guys? What kind of half hearted perversion is this? If you are gonna hang out in bathrooms then go for it!

[boywiththorninside]

Two, three people saying something is one thing. EIGHT people saying it, and with nothing showing up to discredit their accounts, would probably get somebody the death penalty in a trial and is certainly good enough to hang a news story on.

Sen. Craig is a liar and hypocrite. Do you not think his constituents ought to know that?

 

An arbitrary number of people accuse an individual of something and there is nothing to prove it didn't happen, this makes it okay to run a story? I love this:

[bjorn_skurj]

An arbitrary number of people accuse an individual of something and there is nothing to prove it didn't happen, this makes it okay to run a story? I love this:

[boywiththorninside]

The quote thing ain't working for me, so I went old-school. Copy and paste.

 

QUOTE (bjorn_skurj @ Dec 3 2007, 02:20 PM)

 

Sen. Craig is a liar and hypocrite. Do you not think his constituents ought to know that?

 

QUOTE (boywiththorninside @ Dec 3 2007, 04:33 PM)

 

Craig already pleaded guilty to the bathroom solicitation, why pile on with a story for which there is no definitive evidence? What does this new story add to what was already known? That there are eight more men

[tugmoose]

What does this new story add to what was already known? That there are eight more men

[EL the Famous]

this thread is something.

[cryptique]

Craig already pleaded guilty to the bathroom solicitation, why pile on with a story for which there is no definitive evidence?

Precisely because he already pleaded guilty to the bathroom solicitation.

 

Let's review a couple of choice quotes from the original post in this thread, shall we?

 

The newspaper acknowledged that its report was not based on definitive evidence but said it also found no evidence to disprove the accounts of the four identified men. It said it reviewed the senator's travel records, which put him where the sex is alleged to have taken place, and did background checks on those making the allegations.

Statesman Editor Vicki Gowler said the newspaper spent several months checking the backgrounds and details of the men's stories.

Several months spent checking the background and details? That doesn't sound like irresponsible journalism to me. There's an existing story out there that a U.S. Senator who is stridently anti-gay is himself a closeted gay, and now there are eight men who have come forward to say that they had encounters with that senator ... sorry, but that's news. They could have printed that several months ago, and maybe then it would have been irresponsible, but it sounds to me like they've performed due diligence here.

 

Also:

 

The newspaper acknowledged that its report was not based on definitive evidence but said it also found no evidence to disprove the accounts of the four identified men.

That's what you do when you've decided to report something but you don't have definitive proof. You acknowledge as much in the article. Sadly, much of the media has forgotten this, and they instead report White House talking points as if they're fact, without disclaimer.

[boywiththorninside]

Precisely because he already pleaded guilty to the bathroom solicitation.

 

If the paper had definitive evidence then, based on Craig's plea, I would agree they should have printed the story. The paper admitted it had no definitive evidence. This new story adds nothing. There's been a lot of innuendo in the past. This is merely more of it.

 

Several months spent checking the background and details? That doesn't sound like irresponsible journalism to me. There's an existing story out there that a U.S. Senator who is stridently anti-gay is himself a closeted gay, and now there are eight men who have come forward to say that they had encounters with that senator ... sorry, but that's news. They could have printed that several months ago, and maybe then it would have been irresponsible, but it sounds to me like they've performed due diligence here.

 

You spend several months investigating and you can't get definitive proof. For me, that is a good reason not to print the story.

 

Again, my main issue is the "accused has the burden of proof" standard the Statesman is endorsing. I would hate to think this is now the norm. It reeks of McCarthyism. I don't think anyone would be eager to accept this standard if it was applied to a politician whose views we admired, rather than to one whose views we abhor.

[EL the Famous]

I don't think anyone would be eager to accept this standard if it was applied to a politician whose views we admired, rather than to one whose views we abhor.

 

YOU THINK?

[boywiththorninside]

YOU THINK?

 

I honestly don't know what to think relating to politics anymore. I deserve the chimp face.

[EL the Famous]

I honestly don't know what to think relating to politics anymore. I deserve the chimp face.

 

ahhhh, but the chimp face wasn't for you...i think your comment was dead on. the guys is a prick and an even bigger one should these claims be substantiated, but i'm hard pressed to defend the near-tabloid journalism going on here. it's not news, it's speculation.