Anatomy Of A Smear (redux)
It’s been interesting watching the MSM bloviate itself to near-orgasm in their attempts to destroy the uppity-black man named Herman Cain. But now the scandal appears dead, and the MSM is left with mud on its hands.Item One: Called Bluffs and Smears. As pointed out last week (LINK), this was always a smear. The accusers remained anonymous to avoid questions, and they refuse to say what Cain supposedly did, so the public can’t see how ridiculous their allegations really are. And they’ve lied to get around the problems with their stories:
● First, how many accusers are there? We're told three, but there's only evidence of one.Item Two: The Evolution of Rape-Rape. Mid-week an allegation arose that Cain raped one of these women (assuming there is more than one). The story started with the claim that a witness saw Cain take a drunken employ to his apartment, from which she emerged and claimed he had molested her. Then the witness denied seeing anything. Then the story changed to “drunken woman wakes up at Cain’s apartment and felt uncomfortable” before it changed to “Cain invited woman to his apartment and she declined.” Each of these revisions was reported as true without confirmation or mention that the story kept evolving. No witness to this has ever come forward.
● The only known accuser claimed she can’t come forward because the confidentiality agreement prevented her. But she violated that agreement when it suited her, so hiding behind it was disingenuous. When this was pointed out, she suddenly claimed she couldn't come forward because she “feared” for her current job. But she works for the federal government and it is literally impossible for her to be fired or punished for coming forward.
● On Friday, the Restaurant Association (NRA) released her from the confidentiality provision. In effect, the NRA called her bluff. And bluff it was. Rather than come forward, she sent her lawyer to claim the allegations were suddenly “too painful to relive.” Yeah, right. Apparently it wasn’t painful to offer the allegations to the media, it's just painful to defend them. The other supposed accuser has since vanished. The third accuser never existed -- she was a creation of Rick Perry’s pollster.
● We now know more of what is really alleged. The woman claims Cain approached her at a function and made a single suggestive comment or invite. She claims she immediately went to the NRA and complained. However, as the NRA timeline revealed, she didn't make the allegation until after Cain left the job.
● Meanwhile, her lawyer tried to smear Cain on the way out. At his press conference, he implied that something physical happened between Cain and the accuser -- something no one has said before -- and he tried to verbally turn a single incident into a series of incidents. He did this by using hypothetical verbiage: “whatever happened, physical or verbal or otherwise.” That's slander.
Item Three: Media Smears. The media has been in full-on smear mode. Politico ran an incredible 95 stories in the first five days. The networks ran 50 stories on this in the same time. By comparison, during the same time period of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the networks ran a grand total of 3 stories. Moreover, they reported every rumor as true, inserted every rumor into each article, and omitted key facts. For example, Politico:
● Never mentioned that no one admitted liability in the settlements.They also skewed their coverage to boost the allegations:
● Never mentioned that these claims were made after Cain left. To the contrary, they actually accused him of lying when he said he wasn’t there when the allegations were made.
● They attacked Cain for refusing to release the woman from the confidentiality provision even though they knew Cain wasn’t a party to the release and had no such powers.
● They never questioned other NRA employees, who have since come forward and said they don't believe the woman.
● They ran headlines saying “The Accuser Speaks” and included this line in all stories starting Friday, even though the accuser refused to speak, and they attributed quotes from her attorney to her as if she said them.Now they're attacking his wife to try to keep the scandal alive.
● They attacked Cain for refusing to answer questions, even as he answered questions. And Politico never reported his threat to sue them. They also kept saying Cain never denied the allegations, even after he emphatically denied them.
Item Four: Dirty Polling. Reuters reporter Steve Holland has been running his own smear campaign. He’s written dozens of stories on this and repeatedly makes distortions. For example, he describes the number of accusers as “at least three” and describes the allegations as both “physical and verbal” and as a “series” or pattern of behavior -- none of which is true.
Saturday, he wrote an article about a poll which claims “Cain has lost 9% support due to the harassment.” But.... this wasn't a scientific poll, it was an internet poll. That makes it pure junk. Yet, Holland incredibly writes that had it been a scientific poll, it would have had a margin of error of +/- 4%. This is statistical bullsh*t.
Also, there’s a huge problem with his numbers. Cain loses 9% among Republicans in his poll (down from 66% to 57%). But his total support only goes down 4%. If we assume that’s true, then somehow Cain’s support among Democrats and Independents WENT UP during this period! Does that make sense to you? The poll and the accompanying story are lies. Multiple real polls show Cain's support actually went up last week. Somehow, neither Holland nor Politico mention those polls, but they DO mention the fake internet poll and treat it like it's real.
Item Five: Handling. Finally, a word on how Cain has handled this issue. A lot of people are upset that his handling hasn’t been slick and perfect. But let me point out a few things:
● There is no slick way to respond to ephemeral, evolving anonymous allegations that have never been detailed. It's a trap no matter how you respond or don't.
● Cain is a businessman, not a politician, and having a slick Bill Clinton-like response would be disconcerting to his image. In fact, articles are now being written that the MSM overplayed their hand and Cain's "amateurishness became almost endearing" by comparison.
● Barring something real, the scandal appears dead. For Cain to kill this off in five days is truly a phenomenal performance. Give the man credit.
Anatomy Of A Smear (redux)
Category : Media BiasIt’s been interesting watching the MSM bloviate itself to near-orgasm in their attempts to destroy the uppity-black man named Herman Cain. But now the scandal appears dead, and the MSM is left with mud on its hands.Item One: Called Bluffs and Smears. As pointed out last week (LINK), this was always a smear. The accusers remained anonymous to avoid questions, and they refuse to say what Cain supposedly did, so the public can’t see how ridiculous their allegations really are. And they’ve lied to get around the problems with their stories:
● First, how many accusers are there? We're told three, but there's only evidence of one.Item Two: The Evolution of Rape-Rape. Mid-week an allegation arose that Cain raped one of these women (assuming there is more than one). The story started with the claim that a witness saw Cain take a drunken employ to his apartment, from which she emerged and claimed he had molested her. Then the witness denied seeing anything. Then the story changed to “drunken woman wakes up at Cain’s apartment and felt uncomfortable” before it changed to “Cain invited woman to his apartment and she declined.” Each of these revisions was reported as true without confirmation or mention that the story kept evolving. No witness to this has ever come forward.
● The only known accuser claimed she can’t come forward because the confidentiality agreement prevented her. But she violated that agreement when it suited her, so hiding behind it was disingenuous. When this was pointed out, she suddenly claimed she couldn't come forward because she “feared” for her current job. But she works for the federal government and it is literally impossible for her to be fired or punished for coming forward.
● On Friday, the Restaurant Association (NRA) released her from the confidentiality provision. In effect, the NRA called her bluff. And bluff it was. Rather than come forward, she sent her lawyer to claim the allegations were suddenly “too painful to relive.” Yeah, right. Apparently it wasn’t painful to offer the allegations to the media, it's just painful to defend them. The other supposed accuser has since vanished. The third accuser never existed -- she was a creation of Rick Perry’s pollster.
● We now know more of what is really alleged. The woman claims Cain approached her at a function and made a single suggestive comment or invite. She claims she immediately went to the NRA and complained. However, as the NRA timeline revealed, she didn't make the allegation until after Cain left the job.
● Meanwhile, her lawyer tried to smear Cain on the way out. At his press conference, he implied that something physical happened between Cain and the accuser -- something no one has said before -- and he tried to verbally turn a single incident into a series of incidents. He did this by using hypothetical verbiage: “whatever happened, physical or verbal or otherwise.” That's slander.
Item Three: Media Smears. The media has been in full-on smear mode. Politico ran an incredible 95 stories in the first five days. The networks ran 50 stories on this in the same time. By comparison, during the same time period of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the networks ran a grand total of 3 stories. Moreover, they reported every rumor as true, inserted every rumor into each article, and omitted key facts. For example, Politico:
● Never mentioned that no one admitted liability in the settlements.They also skewed their coverage to boost the allegations:
● Never mentioned that these claims were made after Cain left. To the contrary, they actually accused him of lying when he said he wasn’t there when the allegations were made.
● They attacked Cain for refusing to release the woman from the confidentiality provision even though they knew Cain wasn’t a party to the release and had no such powers.
● They never questioned other NRA employees, who have since come forward and said they don't believe the woman.
● They ran headlines saying “The Accuser Speaks” and included this line in all stories starting Friday, even though the accuser refused to speak, and they attributed quotes from her attorney to her as if she said them.Now they're attacking his wife to try to keep the scandal alive.
● They attacked Cain for refusing to answer questions, even as he answered questions. And Politico never reported his threat to sue them. They also kept saying Cain never denied the allegations, even after he emphatically denied them.
Item Four: Dirty Polling. Reuters reporter Steve Holland has been running his own smear campaign. He’s written dozens of stories on this and repeatedly makes distortions. For example, he describes the number of accusers as “at least three” and describes the allegations as both “physical and verbal” and as a “series” or pattern of behavior -- none of which is true.
Saturday, he wrote an article about a poll which claims “Cain has lost 9% support due to the harassment.” But.... this wasn't a scientific poll, it was an internet poll. That makes it pure junk. Yet, Holland incredibly writes that had it been a scientific poll, it would have had a margin of error of +/- 4%. This is statistical bullsh*t.
Also, there’s a huge problem with his numbers. Cain loses 9% among Republicans in his poll (down from 66% to 57%). But his total support only goes down 4%. If we assume that’s true, then somehow Cain’s support among Democrats and Independents WENT UP during this period! Does that make sense to you? The poll and the accompanying story are lies. Multiple real polls show Cain's support actually went up last week. Somehow, neither Holland nor Politico mention those polls, but they DO mention the fake internet poll and treat it like it's real.
Item Five: Handling. Finally, a word on how Cain has handled this issue. A lot of people are upset that his handling hasn’t been slick and perfect. But let me point out a few things:
● There is no slick way to respond to ephemeral, evolving anonymous allegations that have never been detailed. It's a trap no matter how you respond or don't."This Best Selling Tends to SELL OUT VERY FAST! If this is a MUST HAVE product, be sure to Order Now to avoid disappointment!"
● Cain is a businessman, not a politician, and having a slick Bill Clinton-like response would be disconcerting to his image. In fact, articles are now being written that the MSM overplayed their hand and Cain's "amateurishness became almost endearing" by comparison.
● Barring something real, the scandal appears dead. For Cain to kill this off in five days is truly a phenomenal performance. Give the man credit.
Best Beyblade Ever - Austerity
Best Beyblade Ever Amazon Product, Find and Compare Prices Online.It’s been interesting watching the MSM bloviate itself to near-orgasm in their attempts to destroy the uppity-black man named Herman Cain. But now the scandal appears dead, and the MSM is left with mud on its hands.Item One: Called Bluffs and Smears. As pointed out last week (LINK), this was always a smear. The accusers remained anonymous to avoid questions, and they refuse to say what Cain supposedly did, so the public can’t see how ridiculous their allegations really are. And they’ve lied to get around the problems with their stories:
● First, how many accusers are there? We're told three, but there's only evidence of one.Item Two: The Evolution of Rape-Rape. Mid-week an allegation arose that Cain raped one of these women (assuming there is more than one). The story started with the claim that a witness saw Cain take a drunken employ to his apartment, from which she emerged and claimed he had molested her. Then the witness denied seeing anything. Then the story changed to “drunken woman wakes up at Cain’s apartment and felt uncomfortable” before it changed to “Cain invited woman to his apartment and she declined.” Each of these revisions was reported as true without confirmation or mention that the story kept evolving. No witness to this has ever come forward.
● The only known accuser claimed she can’t come forward because the confidentiality agreement prevented her. But she violated that agreement when it suited her, so hiding behind it was disingenuous. When this was pointed out, she suddenly claimed she couldn't come forward because she “feared” for her current job. But she works for the federal government and it is literally impossible for her to be fired or punished for coming forward.
● On Friday, the Restaurant Association (NRA) released her from the confidentiality provision. In effect, the NRA called her bluff. And bluff it was. Rather than come forward, she sent her lawyer to claim the allegations were suddenly “too painful to relive.” Yeah, right. Apparently it wasn’t painful to offer the allegations to the media, it's just painful to defend them. The other supposed accuser has since vanished. The third accuser never existed -- she was a creation of Rick Perry’s pollster.
● We now know more of what is really alleged. The woman claims Cain approached her at a function and made a single suggestive comment or invite. She claims she immediately went to the NRA and complained. However, as the NRA timeline revealed, she didn't make the allegation until after Cain left the job.
● Meanwhile, her lawyer tried to smear Cain on the way out. At his press conference, he implied that something physical happened between Cain and the accuser -- something no one has said before -- and he tried to verbally turn a single incident into a series of incidents. He did this by using hypothetical verbiage: “whatever happened, physical or verbal or otherwise.” That's slander.
Item Three: Media Smears. The media has been in full-on smear mode. Politico ran an incredible 95 stories in the first five days. The networks ran 50 stories on this in the same time. By comparison, during the same time period of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the networks ran a grand total of 3 stories. Moreover, they reported every rumor as true, inserted every rumor into each article, and omitted key facts. For example, Politico:
● Never mentioned that no one admitted liability in the settlements.They also skewed their coverage to boost the allegations:
● Never mentioned that these claims were made after Cain left. To the contrary, they actually accused him of lying when he said he wasn’t there when the allegations were made.
● They attacked Cain for refusing to release the woman from the confidentiality provision even though they knew Cain wasn’t a party to the release and had no such powers.
● They never questioned other NRA employees, who have since come forward and said they don't believe the woman.
● They ran headlines saying “The Accuser Speaks” and included this line in all stories starting Friday, even though the accuser refused to speak, and they attributed quotes from her attorney to her as if she said them.Now they're attacking his wife to try to keep the scandal alive.
● They attacked Cain for refusing to answer questions, even as he answered questions. And Politico never reported his threat to sue them. They also kept saying Cain never denied the allegations, even after he emphatically denied them.
Item Four: Dirty Polling. Reuters reporter Steve Holland has been running his own smear campaign. He’s written dozens of stories on this and repeatedly makes distortions. For example, he describes the number of accusers as “at least three” and describes the allegations as both “physical and verbal” and as a “series” or pattern of behavior -- none of which is true.
Saturday, he wrote an article about a poll which claims “Cain has lost 9% support due to the harassment.” But.... this wasn't a scientific poll, it was an internet poll. That makes it pure junk. Yet, Holland incredibly writes that had it been a scientific poll, it would have had a margin of error of +/- 4%. This is statistical bullsh*t.
Also, there’s a huge problem with his numbers. Cain loses 9% among Republicans in his poll (down from 66% to 57%). But his total support only goes down 4%. If we assume that’s true, then somehow Cain’s support among Democrats and Independents WENT UP during this period! Does that make sense to you? The poll and the accompanying story are lies. Multiple real polls show Cain's support actually went up last week. Somehow, neither Holland nor Politico mention those polls, but they DO mention the fake internet poll and treat it like it's real.
Item Five: Handling. Finally, a word on how Cain has handled this issue. A lot of people are upset that his handling hasn’t been slick and perfect. But let me point out a few things:
● There is no slick way to respond to ephemeral, evolving anonymous allegations that have never been detailed. It's a trap no matter how you respond or don't.
● Cain is a businessman, not a politician, and having a slick Bill Clinton-like response would be disconcerting to his image. In fact, articles are now being written that the MSM overplayed their hand and Cain's "amateurishness became almost endearing" by comparison.
● Barring something real, the scandal appears dead. For Cain to kill this off in five days is truly a phenomenal performance. Give the man credit.
Product Title : Anatomy Of A Smear (redux)
0 comments
Post a Comment