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

[EV_Ares]

From: Sirotablog - Real-world wisdom from outside the beltway.


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.

Here is the excerpt:

"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.'"


(All of the article @ link below)

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/08/time_mag_slams_media_for_edwar.html

[Richard Steele]

1. K&R

[liberal N proud]

2. THe hypocrisy is in the reporting of Edwards

Those same reporters slamming Edwards for his big house will support, endorse and vote for a RepubliCON with the same size or bigger house but is not supporting conservation efforts.

[NewJeffCT]

3. good for Time magazine

I never had a problem with Edwards' being wealthy and being an advocate for the poor.