burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:32 AM
Original message |
I'd like to hear a defense of the Clinton's successfully spiking the GQ story. |
|
In fact, if you don't like her please refrain from making this thread a bashing. I realy just want to hear some justification.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I want to know what's in the story. If it's so damn bad that she |
|
had to kill it, I want to hear it. Shame on GQ for bowing to pressure from the Clintons. I'm tired of their mafia-style tactics--I highly doubt GQ is part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".
|
durrrty libby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
53. I hope it drives all the haters insane. I would really love that |
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #53 |
57. I'm sure you wouldn't want to hear anything bad about your candidate. |
|
However, I am an Obama supporter, and I would like to see as much information on him as possible, even if it's unflattering--whether or not I choose to believe it, or give it any importance, is up to me. It's called being an informed voter.
|
durrrty libby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #57 |
59. So knowing that Obama's kids don't want to jump in bed with |
|
him in the morning because he stinks, makes you a more "informed voter"???
Yeah right
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #59 |
60. I know how to discount the trivial and heed the important. |
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #57 |
65. a bit of lucid thinking eh? Can't have that now. |
Skinner
ADMIN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message |
2. She's running for president. |
|
Of course her campaign is going to try to squash unflattering stories.
Politics: It's an ugly business.
|
Zandor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Smart politics at that |
|
They have something to give - access and thier time. Of course they'll give it to friendlier outlets and try to use it to make coverage as favorable as possible.
|
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. What worries me about that is... |
|
the fact that holding The Sword of Damocles of Access over the press' head is exactly the tactic used and perfected by Karl Rove, lo these many years.
Not a heartening move at all.
|
Zandor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. And used by many Democrats |
|
It's foolish not to do it.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. But is this not the very essence of media control and manipulation |
|
that we all decry as one of the causes of our ailments?
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. The Clintons are no better than the Bushies in this regard--WAYYYY too much |
|
power and leverage over the media. The Hillary "carpet-bomb" of TV appearances over the weekend just proves that she will be treated like a queen--WHY is she given such deference? No wonder Obama and Edwards have no hope of being the nominee, unless she gets hit by a bus. It's sickening. I'm so fucking tired of two families controlling this country.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
17. Please don't turn this into a Hillary bashing thread |
|
What I want to accomplish here is to call US out on OUR hypocricy. We bitch and moan about the media not doing its job when it comes to Republicans. If we accept our doing it we have no right to complain about this issue anymore.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
28. Not bashing--just referring to the fact that it's their obvious power over |
|
the media that blocks our access to information that we as voters might want to know, to make an informed decision. This is a disservice to the public--if the story's untrue, the Clintons can certainly dispute it, and the American people can decide whether it's credible. Neither party should have this kind of power over the media--it certainly didn't help us in the run-up to the Iraq war, did it? I understand that if a DEMOCRAT does it, then the attitude here is that it's OK, but it's not--I don't trust ANYBODY of either party to that extent.
|
Maribelle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
16. GQ is a fashion magazine. |
|
They did not want to put Bill on their cover for his political essence.
They wanted to use Bill to garner big bucks. Nothing else.
|
La Lioness Priyanka
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
9. i am glad someone aside from me said it. politicians are not angels |
|
and you cant expect them to be. if they were, they would lose.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. ah, the everybody does it defense. |
|
Sorry, that's not actually a defense.
|
La Lioness Priyanka
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
29. sorry if reality is not a good enough defense for you. |
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
36. Right, if someone were going to print something unflattering to you |
|
and you had a way to stop it, wouldn't you do it, too?
I'm not saying it's moral. I'm saying it's understandable.
|
rodeodance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:36 AM
Response to Original message |
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. That's an interesting one, let me ponder on that for a while. |
durrrty libby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:40 AM
Response to Original message |
8. You want to read about disagreements of people in a fashion |
|
magazine?
Hahaha Watch a Soap Opera. Probably more interesting :boring:
Bashers are transparent, petty and sad
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
This month's issue has interviews with Colin Powell, Dr. Dre, and Michael Jordan...John Kennedy is on the cover...Obama was on last month's cover...
But killing a negative story...More power to em...
|
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
54. GQ has some really great investigative and political reporting. |
|
So does Vogue.
And more inportantly, those stories are offered to a tremendously large audience.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:42 AM
Response to Original message |
10. ...and a follow-up question.. |
|
Let's imagine the completely bizarre possibility that the Republican machi9ne gets a hold of what was in the GQ article. Let's say its bad, really bad, what happens then?
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
18. It was about infighting among her campaign staff |
|
Hardly a new happening.
This whole thing is a yawner.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #18 |
25. Well of course it is. |
|
I just wish I had a moral guidebook that indicated when its a "yawner" and when its not.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
21. The Whole Article Was About Campaign Infighting |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-26-07 09:48 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
I don't think if people learn that Harold Ickes and Mandy Grumwald have different strategies it will doom her campaign...
Oh, the current issue of GQ is great... It has interviews with Colin Powell, Michael Jordan and Dr. Dre...
|
durrrty libby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
44. And you care about the crumbling, disorganized,repukes |
|
why?
This is one of the huge problems of the dems. Still afraid of the boogeyman. :spank:
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message |
13. Any candidate would try to kill any unflattering story |
|
There is ***absolutely nothing** remarkable in a presidential (or even local dogcatcher) candidate trying to get an unfavorable story killed. The only difference here is the fame of the involved parties.
There really shouldn't be any story here at all ...... except the personality-obsessed media has made one.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
15. They might try to kill it, but they shouldn't succeed. That is GQ's fault. |
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
22. More like Conde Nast's fault |
|
As if Cone Nast's stable of publications is the news of record.
Does no one see how silly it is to worry that a magazine named 'Gentleman's Quarterly', that is published monthly, decided access was better than journalistic integrity?
Double yawn.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
20. So the difference between this episode of media manipulation |
|
and the ones we don't like is...?
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
31. If you can't see the difference ....... |
|
...... there's little I can say to help you.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #31 |
34. Sweetie, I didn't ask for your help nor do I need it. |
|
And your inferring some sort of mental incapacity because my vision differs from yours is quite inane.
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #34 |
64. Oh stop being so silly |
|
And for my sake, I'm glad I'm not your sweetie.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #64 |
cobalt1999
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message |
19. If you are running for president, you first of all have to control your image |
|
Like it or not, that was one of Deans biggest failures.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #19 |
23. NO IT WAS NOT DEAN'S FAILURE! |
|
It was the corporatocracy deciding he would not be good for them. Period.
|
cobalt1999
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #23 |
|
I was a huge Dean supporter in 2004, but even I could see he never countered his image issues.
Image, unfortunately, is everything in a campaign. Those that define their image, control it, and protect it survive.
|
conscious evolution
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #32 |
62. Substance over image anyday |
|
The only reason I still vote for dems is because of Deans message,not style. The fact that Clinton is worried more about her image speaks volumes to me.
|
cobalt1999
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #62 |
67. Like it or not, to be elected you better have a good image. |
|
Not arguing that image is more important than substance, just stating reality.
|
conscious evolution
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #67 |
|
The Shrine of the Flickering Idol has probably done more damage to democracy then most people would ever imagine.
|
NashVegas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:49 AM
Response to Original message |
24. It Was GQ That Made the Decision to Spike the Story |
|
The Clintons made a request. GQ was under no obligation to kill the story. They did so because they thought they'd eventually sell more issues with a puff piece on Bill.
It's why we call them "whores."
|
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:50 AM
Response to Original message |
26. Lemme ask a hypothetical |
|
What if she didn't have the story killed? What if it came out and, while not evidence of her reported pointy tail or horns, made her look bad? Would we be as outraged that she was a wimp and didn't fight a media cabal bent on her utter destruction?
Again ..... this is a non-issue.
|
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
30. You are within your rights to make this a non-issue |
|
for those of us who consider her to not be the best choice, but one that is still being shoved down our throats, it most certainly IS an issue. Your declaring otherwise does not settle the matter.
|
durrrty libby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #30 |
55. I hope the small petty crap makes the small and petty lose their little minds |
Stinky The Clown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
63. First off ..... she's very far from my choice to be our nominee ..... |
|
..... if that somehow is your implication for me seeing this as a non issue. I don't hate her, but there are others who I would prefer. Whatever, this has zip to do with my view of this incident.
I just can't get upset by her doing a good job of managing her campaign. Maybe because I'm not blinded by hatred for her??
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #26 |
39. Do we like articles that make Rudy look bad? Do we appreciate getting |
|
that information? Suppose I'm an independent voter, and I want to hear the good, bad, and ugly of BOTH parties, but either one or both parties succeed in controlling the media. Is this desirable?
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #39 |
51. GQ Wouldn't Put Rudy On The Cover Of A Fashion Magazine Because He's Fugly |
Maribelle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:51 AM
Response to Original message |
27. I don't think the Clintons need a defense on this issue. |
|
Bill simply gave GQ a choice: you're not going to use my face to increase your circulation all the while trying to bash the campaign to increase your circulation.
GQ chose Bill.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #27 |
33. An unflattering portrayal is "bashing"? What if it's the truth? Is the truth "bashing"? |
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #33 |
|
Unflattering to a candidate, according to the candidate's supporters. Apparently, they have the last word on that discernment, or so they believe. Hence, if you say anything critical of said candidate, no matter how mild, you are "bashing".
It's a whiny, poopie-diaper tactic that has long been embraced by our friends on the right.
Of course, the rule does not apply if the situation is reversed.
Ain't the logic of political campaigns grand? ;-)
|
Maribelle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #37 |
42. Anything written about Hillary by Josh Green can be considered bashing. |
|
This biased nasty man is probably in competition with the mAnn C for bashing.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #42 |
43. So I should discount anything he has to say because YOU think he's biased? |
|
I couldn't care less what his biases are--I want INFORMATION. Facts are facts.
|
Maribelle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #43 |
Maribelle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #33 |
38. Do you honestly believe that Josh Green is not out to bash Hillary... |
|
anyway he can?
Josh Green could write a book on bashing Hillary.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #38 |
40. I don't know him, don't care who he is. If he has valid information, I want |
|
to hear it. I want to know. I can't believe DUers support ANYONE controlling the media, to the point where we only hear flattering propaganda.
|
Maribelle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #40 |
45. GQ didn't have to put Clinton on the cover. |
|
Maybe you could write to them about the issues.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #40 |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-26-07 10:09 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
I wouldn't cooperate with a magazine that was going to do an unflattering piece on my wife...
He would be a total dick if he did...
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #46 |
50. I do blame GQ. They shouldn't bow to pressure--they are obviously |
|
more concerned with selling copies and keeping their access to the powerful than with journalism, which is their right--they are a business. My concern is not GQ--it's CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, the NYT--the REAL bastions of mainstream news. How much influence do the Clintons, and anyone else, have over these organizations? What are we NOT going to hear, that we should be hearing?
|
Justitia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:04 AM
Response to Original message |
41. I'd do it too, if I could. It's GQ, not the League of Women Voters, fer cryin' out loud. -eom |
burythehatchet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #41 |
47. It's GQ, not the League of Women Voters, fer cryin' out loud |
|
That's a message that may have been best delivered to her campaign. Apparently she didn't think so.
|
Justitia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #47 |
52. I've seen my candidates made into cartoons by fluff media. I support ANY Dem's ability to quash |
|
silly, non-substantive, caricatures painted by "entertainment" media.
I've been crushed in the past over stuff like this, and believe me, it starts to turn your candidate into a cartoon. I could give you thousands of examples, but you probably know them all already.
NO Dem candidate benefits from this stuff.
If the piece does not get into policy, legal issues, vote history, etc - but focuses on "personality profiles", I fully support any Dem's ability to get it shitcanned.
We gotta stick together on stuff like this.
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #52 |
56. I care about "personality profiles"--BIG TIME. Look at Rudy G.--we now |
|
have the valuable knowledge that he is an unhinged, authoritarian nutjob, mostly through "personality profiles" that show how he operated in NYC. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a story reveals that Hillary is ALSO an authoritarian nutjob. I wouldn't vote for her either, then. If the story gets squashed, how does that serve me? I don't give a flying fuck that she's a Dem--personality and character flaws DO matter. Chimpy makes that all too clear.
|
Justitia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #56 |
61. Rudy easily exposes himself by his public policy actions, and yes I've enjoyed anti-Rudy articles |
|
too.
But in all the years of the Clintons under public scrutiny, do you really think GQ had anything new, relevant or earth-shattering to share with us?
I understand she is not your candidate, but I would caution you not to let that color your judgment on this kind of media strategy. Especially this early.
ALL of our candidates will eventually fall victim to being made into caricatures. You won't like it when it comes around to your candidate, and you'll want him to fight back against unfair portraits that add nothing substantive to the debate.
And, in the end, being a voter who embraces the ideals of the Democratic party, you want a Democrat to lead this country. Having to un-cartoon whoever the nominee ends up being just makes that goal more difficult.
|
Atman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:15 AM
Response to Original message |
49. It happens all the time in publishing, and is much ado about nothing. |
|
I wrote about this the other day, and I have some inside perspective at it; I've been a magazine editor, and I published my own newsstand magazine for a while. This is so common place in the magazine industry, but it shouldn't be a surprise if you look closely at the magazines you read.
Do you think it's coincidence that a big story about some product just happens to be placed on the page following an ad for that product? In the celebrity gossip rags, the killing of stories and threatening to withhold access is de riguer. It's the way they conduct biz; a publicist trying to promote Movie X will threaten to deny access to the other clients in his stable if GossipRag Weekly says something bad about Movie X's star.
This is a story being whipped up by the Hillary haters, and should not be given so much attention. It happens all the time. The fact that it's the Clinton's is the ONLY difference here.
.
|
robcon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-26-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message |
58. I think this story and the Hsu fundraising will both bite her in the ass. |
|
Whether it will result in significantly lower voting in the polls or voting booths is hard to predict.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 10:42 PM
Response to Original message |