What has changed in media standards since JFK's indiscretions?

[azul]

What are the political lessons for the dems to be learned from the business-interests dominated media's tabloid style journalism in this new world of Puritanism with nsa snooping?

I have just read, here, for more than an hour, discussion of Edwards', and thus dems' trouble. And it is a very complex issue. Edwards being the new poster-boy for political corruption and scandal, dems would do themselves and the world a favor by being circumspect and learning just where they stand. The fickle voting public and media spin-machine being brought together to do them further harm.

First, what I see presently of the situation is a media skewed, by long term development and investment, to favor conservative issues, military belligerency, capital interests over labor, and R over D.

Second, I see a justice department, and possibly intelligence departments (inscrutable by design), politicized to treat democrats and republicans unequally.

Third, a Puritanical and hypocritical standard of ethics for a large section of the US population, or at least by what the media announces is a standard of decency, that craves scandal and belittling of the high and mighty. The main hypocrisy engine being the ability to see violence and murder but not sex and nudity on TV and in movies. An armed and dangerous stalking voyeur.

And last, unfortunately, I see a political system that selects for sell-outs and compromised people. A corporately financed and selected group of putative representatives that actually does its main business now for the increase of freedoms for capital and corporations and for restraining the freedoms and rights of people and labor. A massive tilt to capital over the past 40 years or so.

And in this situation, any progressive democrat running for office to effect beneficial changes and for the preservation of this democracy, would be advised to be without any type of human frailty that this media and audience could crucify. Otherwise, the democratic party and all politicians will suffer by association, and this is by design to further divide peoples against themselves and divert attention away from business shenanigans.

Demand more of candidates in this witch-hunting political environment, especially one in which the nsa in secret and partisan hands, and demand a media that is at least fair and serves justice.

Please excuse me to head for bed and work, peace.

[glowing]

1. 24/7 news blitz and the new fun of papparazzi.. who are paid for the pic.

[melm00se]

13. papparazzi

are nothing new. they have existed almost since the invention of the camera.

look up "Confidential", "Whisper," "Dare," "Suppressed", "The Lowdown", "Hush-Hush", and "Uncensored" magazines.

all of them traded in gossip and scandal.

[mcctatas]

2. They have to do something to fill those 24 hours....

Cavuto can only have so many Hooters girls on in a month :shrug:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

7. you are very sad and pathetic n/t

[CrazyDude]

8. You're an idiot n/t

[MrModerate]

4. We talk of human frailty, but the real issue is . . .

the intersection of judgement and impulse control.

Just about any sexual being in a committed relationship will nevertheless have "lusted in their heart" after any number of potential sexual partners. However, since self-respect and self-preservation are frequently founded on promises made to a partner to remain monogamous, the more self-controlled among us haven't acted on these impulses.

Doesn't mean they didn't want to, or didn't have opportunity, just that at the critical moment they said "no."

In those people we are going to trust with, f'rinstance, nuclear launch codes, we have every right to expect the highest level of impulse control. When it's rubbed in our faces that we're not going to get that restraint, the MSM, smelling blood as they do, understandably (if disgustingly) takes it as a sign to go ape-shit.

Sure it's claptrap. But it's not as if there aren't pretty obvious reasons why these sorts of stories get so much play.

[Connonym]

6. Yeah it certainly interfered with JFK, LBJ, Roosevelt, Ike, Bush I and B Clinton's ability to lead

It has nothing to do with ability of handling nuclear launch codes, when to call out FEMA or any other important decision making. Unless of course the president makes himself unavailable whilst trysting or there are super sexy spies ready to seduce him at any given moment to prevent him from doing his job.

Seriously, we all act like it's unheard of but statistics show otherwise

Percentage of marriages where one or both spouses admit to infidelity, either physical or emotional: 41%

Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 57%

Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 54%

http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html

[MrModerate]

9. JFK and LBJ didn't get caught . . .

Or if caught, the press didn't run with it (different times, different standards; the overwhelming majority of political reporters were men, for one thing). Roosevelt, Ike, and Bush I may have been innocent of physical infidelity -- which is the only one that counts with the press. Last I heard, there was no definitive proof.

WJC's ability to lead (perhaps "capability" is a better term) was just about wrecked by "public" response to his infidelity (manufactured by his political enemies or not).

What's the fraction of people elected to the presidency? 1 in 300,000,000, right? Are you surprised such people are held to a different standard and that every breath they take is watched and judged?

[dajoki]

15. I love FDR...

but his infidelities are well known. He had a long term affair with his wife's personal secretary, the only reason they did not divorce was because his mother threatened to cut him off. For the rest of their marraige they slept in sepertate bedrooms and while he was president they lived in completely different wings of the White House. How would that go over today? Did this affect his leadership? NO, I say thank God he was president when he was!!

[MrModerate]

17. OK, the last time I read a bio of FDR (many years ago admittedly . . .)

The jury was still out. I guess the historical record has been cleared up a bit since I last paid attention.

But to address your central point, it didn't seem to interfere with his ability to lead (again, I think the press just didn't care that much then or such things were "expected"), and it may have even so energized Eleanor to achieve in her own right and hence paid dividends to her personally and the nation as a whole.

Strange creatures, human beings.

[dajoki]

18. Franklin and Eleanor...

came along at the right time in history, the country needed them and they delivered. The thing today is who knows how many great leaders were lost due to the incessant hounding of the media. I always thought Gary Hart would have done a good job and no matter what people are saying I think John Edwards could have also.

The other thing is that the country needs another FDR right now, and although times have changed I think the people are be begining to realize that. But will the MEDIA allow it?

[HEyHEY]

5. CNN n/t

[1]

10. america grew the fuck up and decided it was no longer cool to fuck around...

on your wife. america decided enough was enough. this shit must end. and we should hold any prick that does fuck around on his wife up to public scrutiny and humiliation.

that's what happened.

do you disagree with america's decision on this subject?

[ladjf]

11. Eventually, only eunuchs will be acceptable as Democratic candidates.

(Just kidding.)

[zbdent]

16. Faux would be running reports about the detached penises

fathering mixed-race children around the world ...

:eyes:

[book_worm]

12. repoters in those days felt it had nothing to do with governing as long as it didn't affect their

job as president.

[cobalt1999]

14. The media had some pride in professional standards back then.

Being a journalist was considered an honorable profession. It required hard work, intelligence, the ability to discern the relevant facts from the chaff, and news organizations that weren't ratings/money focused.

Now, it's all about ratings and sex, gossip, innuendo sells. News Organizations have limited budgets. Reporters are selected by how they look and sound, not what's between their ears.

[Spike89]

19. Culture wars changed the environment

It's fun and easy to blame the media, but politicians are almost as much fun to blame and in this case, really more culpable. The big difference between FDR, Kennedy, and other earlier president's scandals is that none of them ran elections specifically based on sexual morality (granted, it was assumed).

Once you open that door however, you run the risk of getting caught. Look at Gary Hart--he all but taunted the press, nearly forcing coverage when he got caught. Repugs in sex scandals deserve the press, especially when they tout their piousness and promise to stop such sins from being committed (by others at least).

[Hidden Stillness]

20. It's the Damned Women...

Despite the incredible stupidity and (typical male) belligerence of your OP, I will try to give a partial answer. The gist of it is: the media is not all-male anymore, and no matter how you censor and "speak for" us, there are many, many issues where women do not have your opinion, and are actually on the other side. Go cry somewhere.

This was back in the bad old days, where males told rape "jokes," and even committed rape, and it was all covered up by the friends who went on drinking binges with them (Ben Bradlee memoir, etc.); when the idea of them having a woman boss was much more shocking and offensive to them, than them cheating on "the little woman," when not cheating might have even indicated that the "studs" were even "fags," or "didn't like girls"--now THAT was "shocking"! When a great reporter such as Helen Thomas could be referred to as "little lady" or "girl," (or, a word that starts with "B"), and "humored" by the males being asked questions. This was the type that still openly said they would never vote for a woman, after laughing at you for bringing it up, because "they" are "not qualified," and who never considered any women's issue as a public or human rights issue. Woman-beaters were still covered-up for then.

This is still the case today, if it were up to males. They get Viagra covered under insurance, yet tell US that "abortion should be rare," because they have "moral" opposition to it. They still tell us that THEIR interests (pornography, cheating) are "our" interests, and that when we fight for what we want, it is "fascist," "hypocritical," killing all their fun. Maybe the non-hypocrites should start yet another "who gives a fuck about the dead raped missing white woman" thread, as if we aren't even people at all. When all they do is trot out the male apologists and censor us immediately, they do not do themselves any favors either, because they are going to lose the women's vote, again, by not addressing us. The cheating male who would bust the woman's fucking jaw if she did the same, IS the hypocrite!

It may shock you to know that many things are different nowadays--people now, often will not vote for anyone who makes an ugly remark against gays, no matter what else they do, will not vote for anyone who is cruel to animals, no matter what else they do, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. I am one of them. Treating women like shit just doesn't get it for me, male, and I am not alone.

Notice the poster who lies so casually about FDR, who did not cheat on Eleanor for all those years--it was a very short affair, stopped, and only resumed way at the end, when Franklin was dying. This the "truth," huh?

To sum it up, the change came when there started to be women reporting, and reacting as citizens, being offended, and caring about, what we think like--the issues and behavior we call with our own opinions--not you.