Roughly forty-six years ago, John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was doing the horizontal mambo with a woman who was also a Mafia wench, while the U S Attorney General, JFK's little brother, was investigating the Mafia.
That was most assuredly and definitely NOT "news."
Today, the chief of police in a larger Midwestern city does the horizontal mambo with an occasional journalist and pundit, and it is MOST ASSUREDLY and CERTAINLY "NEWS."
Or so we are told.
My, how things change in 40-some years, no?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That was most assuredly and definitely NOT "news."
But shouldn't it have been? I mean, shouldn't the public know when potential conflicts of interest exist like that? I say yes, but I'm just a stupid liberal.
Or, to turn it around, under your model, Lucianne Goldberg should have been run out of town on a rail for publicizing Lewinski. (The upside is maybe we'd have been spared her dope of a son as a pundit.)
I think that if the President is screwing around, it is definitely "news," particularly when he's playing with the wrong sort of people. But the press did not think so in 1962 (or so.) Therefore, either your definition is wrong, or it changed, right?
I'm still not convinced that the Flynn affair is "news," and Bruce Murphy hinted at the same thing in his essay.
One more thing, Jay: you might be a grossly under-informed liberal, but you're not stupid.
Post a Comment