Time Mag Slams Media For Edwards Coverage; Says Reporters Making "A Dumb Argument"

[jsamuel]

From DailyKos by David Sirota

by davidsirota
Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:20:06 AM CDT

Two weeks ago, I asked a pretty simple question: What is real-life hypocrisy, and what is faux hypocrisy manufactured by the political Punditburo in lieu of actual reporting? I asked this question in the wake of right-wing Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi screaming from the ramparts about how John Edwards is supposedly a hypocrite for having an ownership stake in an investment fund that has ownership stakes in some subprime lenders. I asserted that just because a candidate wants to change the laws that govern the land (in this case, lending laws) doesn't mean they don't live in the current world as it is, and certainly doesn't mean they are a hypocrite. It doesn't mean they've made a smooth political move - but again it doesn't even come close to meaning they are a hypocrite.

Shocker, my view hasn't really broken the Washington Punditburo's fabricate-a-gotcha rituals - though finally, at least one of the big traditional media outlets has actually taken the time to report the Edwards situation accurately.

None other than Time magazine sets the record straight this week about Edwards, and indirectly indicts the absurdly biased and irresponsible behavior by campaign reporters and pundits alike:

"Another challenge is that much of the attention he's gotten recently has been the unflattering kind, stories that question his sincerity and assail his image as a fighter for the little guy by focusing on his pricey haircuts, huge house and hedge-fund job. These viral attacks, spreading from the Drudge Report and other blogs to newspapers everywhere, make a dumb argument. They assume that someone who's wealthy can't be a sincere advocate for poor and working people. By that logic, the healthy can't speak on behalf of the sick, or whites on behalf of people of color...Here's what would truly be hypocritical: if Edwards spoke out on behalf of the disadvantaged while pushing policies that benefit the rich. This he does not do. He favors boosting the capital-gains tax rate for families earning over $250,000 and closing the loophole that allows fund managers—like those at Fortress Investment Group, where he earned almost $500,000 in 2006—to get taxed at just 15%. 'He wants to take money away from the people who paid him,' says deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. 'That's not hypocrisy. That's sincerity.'"

That's exactly right. No one is saying Edwards' moves have been perfectly smooth, but the idea that his actions are somehow hypocritical or that they undermine his credibility on the major issues he's campaigning on (and has made his life's career about) is just ridiculous.

more...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/31/101816/450

[corkhead]

1. I will be VERY angry if Rupert Murdoch and Drudge pick our next president

[obnoxiousdrunk]

5. Me too

I want the Hedge fund gangs to pick our next President.

[BrklynLib at work]

2. I am truly shocked to actually read something that contains so much truth..in one of the MSMs!!!!!

[progressoid]

3. I think the rich & powerful fear Edwards the most.

A victory by Edwards could eat away at the empire the so-called mainstream media have built. Of course that applies to Drudge, Rush, etc.

[LeFleur1]

4. True

Edwards knows how it is to work to get ahead. He knows some people need government help. (what else is our tax money for, if not for people things like health care, education, roads?) I don't understand those who revile his success. Isn't he a real product of the "American Dream"?

[Hieronymus]

8. Yes, they're terrified of Edwards and know that he could win easily.

[Ninga]

6. Vintage Sirota....n/t and K & R

[maximusveritas]

7. They just don't understand the argument

It's not about the fact that Edwards is rich. It's about the wasteful lifestyle he lives. There are plenty of rich people who demonstrate their concern for the poor by living a modest lifestyle. This means not spending absurd amounts of money on haircuts and not buying extravagant mansions. Edwards' failure in this respect calls into question the sincerity of his professed concern for the poor. No one expects him to live in a mud hut and never get a haircut, but I do think there is a line which he has crossed.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. But by that same argument, what's justifiable in response?

Ever seen pictures of Hillary's house? Yikes! That's on much more expensive real estate, too, by the way. I guess it doesn't matter since she doesn't make such a stink about the plight of the poor, though...

Your point is very well taken, but it gets me back to one of my enduring bugaboos about the human race: the desire for clarity, certainty and specificity in a world of murky grey areas.

Four hundred bucks for a haircut is a good place to start: in showbiz (which is what politics is on a few levels, lest we forget) that's not such a huge bill for a cut that's done on-the-fly and at the behest of the scalp owner's schedule. Also, a first evaluation haircut will be more expensive.

Me? I almost never pay for a haircut; with unruly ringlets, my spouse does just fine. (I'm also ridiculously cheap about certain things, even though I'm doing okay...) To a working person, that amount for a haircut is a great cheap-shot. The fact that Hillary shells out $1,500.00 or so doesn't seem to get much traction. Obama's hair can be cut with clippers.

Edwards' house is certainly big, alright, but it could be much bigger still. Some people even rage at the fact that he cut down trees to build the thing.

The question is this: how big a deal is it? He's certainly risked his political future on something that's far from being a sure winner (poverty issues are NOT in any way popular; they've been twisted by the right as stealing from workers' wages) with this, and he's spent much effort that he could have spent making yet more money for himself.

Where does one draw the line? Personally, the way it's all been and is being used, I think it's a scurrilous double standard. Hey, Hillary only makes blithe references to helping the poor, so she's perfectly free to live like a Queen, whereas someone who's actually dedicated much of his recent life and money to doing something about it is held up for ridicule. That ain't right.

So, by your own concept of a sliding-scale, how much is he to be pilloried for this? Has it been enough or too much? It's been CONSTANT in the media and snide little references are glancingly inserted into the lead paragraphs of many articles on him; is this enough, or should he take yet more hits for it? He's hardly some satanic sybarite, now is he? To hear some on this board kvetch about it he's virtually stubbing his cigars out in the upturned palms of starving beggars as he cackles with glee.

These are very emotional things to deal with, and once one has allied oneself to some degree or other, one has the taint of one's confederates to contend with.

So what do you say? Enough, or should he be introduced as "the bloated plutocratic hypocrite who steals from the poor to glorify himself" as he's brought into public appearances in a sedan chair?

Sure, a snide comment or two, but it's WAY past that and has been for quite some time. He's a decent guy, and he's taken up a cause that from a pure metric of popularity is an albatross; he's done this because it matters to him and he feels it matters to the country and society as a whole. Hell, if he lived in a tract house he'd be getting slagged for "playing poor", and I GUARANTEE you the more rabid of the Edwards haters here and elsewhere would be front and center doing just that; there's no way to win in this situation.

Don't you think it's been more than enough?

[Kurovski]

10. It's pretty clear who corporate America does NOT want as president.

We've been here before.