Vanity Fair finds no "proof" of Clinton affairs -- but spreads rumors anyway

[DeepModem Mom]

Media Matters for America: Vanity Fair finds no "proof" of Clinton affairs -- but spreads rumors anyway

Five paragraphs into a nearly 10,000-word article about former President Bill Clinton, Vanity Fair writer Todd S. Purdum stipulated that there is no "proof of post-presidential sexual indiscretions on Clinton's part" -- but that did not stop Purdum from devoting a sizable portion of the article to relaying what he himself described as "a steady stream of tabloid speculation and Internet intimations that the Big Dog might be up to his old tricks."

In parroting the "tabloid speculation and Internet intimations" that by his own admission exist entirely without proof, Purdum repeatedly used anonymous sources to suggest there is truth to the rumors. But not one of Purdum's sources, named or otherwise, actually professes to have even secondhand knowledge of "indiscretions on Clinton's part." Purdum quoted, among others, "one former aide to Clinton," "another former aide," a "longtime Clinton-watcher," "one senior aide," "one former longtime aide," a "former Clinton aide," "one of (Maggie) Williams's former colleagues and friends," and "one former aide." In all, the article featured quotes or paraphrases of nearly two dozen anonymous sources. Yet even these anonymous sources professed no knowledge of "indiscretions" by Clinton.

Elsewhere, Purdum did not bother to attribute even to anonymous sources his assertions that Clinton associates have concerns about his rumored indiscretions. "Over the last few years," Purdum wrote, "aides have winced at repeated tabloid reports about Clinton's episodic friendship and occasional dinners out with Belinda Stronach, a twice-divorced billionaire auto-parts heiress and member of the Canadian Parliament 20 years his junior." How did Purdum know "aides have winced"? Purdum did not tell the reader. Nor, for that matter, did Purdum tell the reader that the "dinner out with Stronach" that garnered attention from tabloids (and The New York Times) was a dinner attended by about a dozen people -- far from the intimate dinners for two Purdum implied.

Purdum's fact-free exploration of rumors about Clinton's supposed "indiscretions" concluded with an alleged "intervention" planned by a former Clinton staffer -- an episode Vanity Fair hyped in the headline of a press release touting the article. But the "intervention" allegation is perhaps the most thinly sourced anecdote in the entire article....Unnamed former Clinton aides told Purdum that an unnamed former assistant wanted to stage an "intervention" because -- according to the other aides -- the aide "believed" that Clinton was "apparently seeing" women on the road.

That's it. That's the explosive revelation Vanity Fair is touting in a press release. Unnamed aides saying that another unnamed aide believed -- based not on firsthand knowledge, but on "complaints" from "Clinton supporters" about "tabloid reports" -- that Clinton was "apparently seeing" (not "sleeping with," just "seeing") women....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806020003?f=h_latest

[BigDaddy44]

1. I'd be inclined to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt....

Except his past history makes that difficult to do.

On the other hand, he isn't running for anything, and if his wife doesn't have a problem with it, then I don't either.

[emilyg]

2. I give him the benefit of the doubt

the timing of this rumor is interesting.

[leftofcool]

3. Isn't it though?

I have some theories about this but should probably keep them to myself for a while

[hedgehog]

14. I'm with you there. Every independent comment about this article indicates

that it is an unsourced hit piece that would get an F at Journalism school. Then Bill comes along and says "I did not have sex with those women" and I :rofl:

[Rageneau]

4. Tell me again: Is Vanity Fair a TV pundit,? A blonde GOP spin bimbo? Or a poster at DU?

When it comes to lies and slanders about the Clintons, the same amount comes from all three sources.

[suzie]

7. Bill Clinton lied to the American public when he campaigned for president

Hillary Clinton sat beside him and supported his lie and added her own.

Bill Clinton lied to all his staff and cabinet about Monica Lewinsky. And then he went on national television and again lied to the American public.

Seems strange to act offended that someone might lie about the Clintons.

[mitchtv]

8. Bob Barr is that you?

nt

[EstimatedProphet]

11. George Bush lied to the American public when he campaigned for president

And also continually after 9/11. It got us inot a war. Over 4,000 of our fellow citizens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now dead. Bill Clinton didn't destroy countries because of having an affair.

Perspective.

[frylock]

9. the clintons are perfectly capable of manufacturing lies and slanders on their own..

remember that time bill clinton lied about fucking that woman? remember that?

[lyonn]

5. Since no one wants to put their name on anything negative

about a politician, this may explain why he wrote this with those qualifications. If more people had written the truth without naming names when it came to how and why we got into a war with Iraq, maybe we would not be there now. True, it is not good to spread ugly rumors without quoting. Still, I wonder? Throw it out there and see if anyone can prove it wrong. That may be the way of the future for journalist. After all, we were led to believe that bush/cheney/rice, etc., were telling us the truth. David Brock should realize this. I loved his book, call it my political bible. All the suspicions and beliefs about the "Right" were verified by his book.

Since he is fairly close to the Clinton crowd, I wonder if this was a warning to the voters. These could be issues brought out by the McCain people when it could be devastating.

[anitar1]

6. I read the article and found the info about his money dealings

much more interesting than the sexual stories. Actually, it seemed to me that the majority of the article was about his international travels took up made up maybe 3/4 of the piece. It was definitely much more interesting than the first part of the article.

[NikolaC]

10. I'm Not A Clinton Supporter, However

I fail to see what is so earth shattering or important about the Clintons sex life. Again, NOT REALLY ANYONE'S BUSINESS. I take issue with the Clintons on a variety of things, but what they may or may not have done bedroom wise should have no effect on how people perceive their ability to govern. Rumor or fact this is just ridiculous.

[LibGranny]

12. Clinton's indiscretions

and subsequent impeachment proceedings were a terrible distraction for the country followed by the bombing of the USS Cole. How many sailors died during that? He wasn't on top of things then because he was trying to save whatever "legacy" he may have had left to save. He was also a proponent of the Iraq war and I think he's tied too closely to the Bush family.

[hedgehog]

13. Also, anything and everything that Clinton did at that point was

perceived as a "wag the dog" strategy meant to distract us from the sex stories. I seem to rememebr he ordered some bombings of terrorist camps around then, and that was my reaction.