Conservatives are used to getting unfairly maligned by the media, so it’s understandable that some would want to jump to Herman Cain’s defense over the sexual harassment allegations. But some of the media bias defenses are starting to become incoherent.
Initially, the complaint was that Politico’s story was too thinly sourced to publish. That may have been the case. But now that Cain has pretty much confirmed everything that Politico wrote, the bias argument is irrelevant.
Cain admits that he was accused of sexual harassment and that there was a financial settlement. He denies that the allegations are true. But he’s noticeably hazy–and inconsistent–about the details.
The fact that many in the media aren’t simply taking Cain at his word that the charges were “baseless” isn’t an unfair attack on him. It’s not a sign of racism, or anti-conservative bias. It’s a sign that reporters are doing their job–the job they should be doing, but sometimes don’t, when the accused party is a liberal Democrat.
The thing is, Cain is acting like he has something to hide. That doesn’t mean he actually does, but it should at least warrant some more scrutiny. Cain spent yesterday making contradictory statements about the facts of the case, and ducking reporters whenever possible:
9 a.m. – ABC’s Jon Karl questions Herman Cain about the sexual harassment allegations at an American Enterprise Institute discussion, only to have his mic cut off.
“I’ll take all of the arrows later [at the National Press Club lunch],” Cain promised, citing AEI’s “ground rules” as the reason he couldn’t speak freely about anything other than tax policy.
11:20 a.m. – Cain appears on Fox News, and tells anchor Jenna Lee that he has never sexually harassed anybody, but was falsely accused of sexual harassment during his time at the National Restaurant Association. He maintains that he had no recollection of a settlement.
“If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it and I hope it wasn’t for much,” Cain said. “If there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers at the restaurant association.”
12:30 p.m. – At the National Press Club lunch, Cain managed to dodge a lot of relevant questions because of the format of the event. Only the moderator could ask questions, and all inquiries had to be submitted earlier in the day. When asked about the charges, Cain repeated that he was “unaware of any sort of settlement.”
“[W]hen the charges were brought, as the leader of the organization I recused myself and allowed my general counsel and my human resource officer to deal with the situation,” said Cain. “And it was concluded after a thorough investigation that it had no basis.”
At the end of the event, NPC staff allegedly barred reporters from confronting Cain with more questions, according to the Washington City Paper.
Afternoon – After the NPC lunch, Cain tells the Associated Press that he has no memory of specific allegations. “That was 12 years ago ago. So no, I don’t remember,” he said.
6:00 p.m. – A PBS NewsHour interview with Cain airs, where he seems to change his story. He admits that he remembers there being a settlement, and gives some of the details of one of the allegations. “The only one that I could recall after a day of trying to remember specifics, was once I referenced this lady’s height and I was standing near her, and I did this saying, you’re the same height of my wife, because my wife is five feet tall and she comes up to my chin,” said Cain.
10 p.m. – Cain repeats most of what he said on NewsHour to Greta Van Susteren, saying that the settlement was “maybe three months’ salary. I don’t remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn’t pay all of the money they demanded.”
He flip-flopped on at least two major facts within 12 hours–his knowledge of the settlements and his knowledge of the allegation details. Even if nothing else trickles out about the case, that’s more than enough to raise red flags.
alana, I don't know what they serve at your inside the beltway cocktail parties but you need to stop drinking it, whatever it is! yYou're just flat wrong on this. His conduct isn't raising any red flags. The allegation that he made some sort of gesture that wasn't overtly sexual but made someone uncomfortable? What the heck is that? It's absolutely ridiculous that this is getting any coverage whatsoever. Furthermore, it's more an indication that you should never ever talk when you are accused of anything — the press isn't interested in finding out the truth. They're interested in nailing him. He's not acting like a guilty man. He's acting like a man who wasn't prepared to deal with a false accusation.
Cain's unpolished responses might be the result of a more obvious – and benign – reason. That Cain never expected to get this far. He didn't tell anyone about something he never expected to have come out; simply because he never expected to poll this well. His lack of organization PROVES he wasn't entirely serious about actually getting votes. What Cain wanted, originally, was airtime to espouse ideas that are important to him. Then, Perry imploded; Cain won the Florida straw poll; and he found himself in an actual campaign. n nFinally, Cain has not adjusted to this good fortune. He still spends too much time in states that don't matter; for the reason that he can generate cash and crowds there. He still has no org. in Iowa; where he must win in order to have a chance. n nNo. Cain was unprepared for this, not because he's guilty, or a lazy campaigner; but because he still doesn't believe his great good fortune to be at the front of the pack. And he has no idea what to do with it.
I agree that he originally entered the race hoping for airtime to espouse ideas that are important to him and that wasn't prepared for the level of success that he's achieved. I actually think that this is a strike against him. If he doesn't take his candidacy seriously why should anyone else? Too much is made of gravitas and 'expertise', but that does not necessarily follow that we should therefore seek out candidates who lack both.
The standard should be how the media reacted to these charges vs. how they reacted to the various Bill Clinton / John Edwards scandals in the earliest stages of the scandals. They were always very skeptical of the facts and motives of the charges and constantly cautioned the public against simply believing the unsubstantiated charges without evidence. No such caution is observed in this case.
"It's absolutely ridiculous that this is getting any coverage whatsoever." n nI agree completely. The accusations I've read so far are pretty much nothing. The only thing noteworthy about this 15 years old news is tacking on the words "sexual harassment." And frankly, it makes me angry. I am a victim of sexual abuse. Some people might think they are taking a higher road by being so sensitive to the feelings of any "abused" person by making the term sexual harassment broader and broader and treating all claims of it as something akin to rape, but let me assure you, it ain't rape! and watering sexual assault down to "gestures of a non-sexual nature that nonetheless made the female very uncomfortable" does NOT show solidarity/sympathy with victims. American society used to hide sex crimes behind closed doors and hush it up. Now we don't – which is a great thing – but we've gone too far when the accusations Cain is accused of are given such play in the media and alternative media. n nThe court through out Jones' complaint against Clinton by saying it did not meet the legal standards of sexual harassment. Fine. But the media ran interference for him and did more to attack the victim than expose Clinton, and pulling your thingy out and propositioning a woman who you had the police escort into your room is considerably worse than what we know about the accusations against Cain. n nLastly, Cain's ability to respond is hampered by more than it being 15 years later – which is a s significant factory. The settlement had a gag order with it. Neither side is supposed to talk about the case. It is legally binding. n nPolitico seems to be using that as a cover for not going into details: that they want to protect the victims. Funny. I guess that kind of media nicety doesn't extend to white trailer trash like Jones (or Clinton's other accusers). Politico certainly wasn't part of any gag order…Neither is the rest of the media. But, for now it seems we're just going to rest comfortable on the phrase "sexual harassment" and the fire storm the media is able to generate with them. n nThe media is cheapening the meaning of sexual abuse and sexual harassment in the name of destroying a political candidate.
"He flip-flopped on at least two major facts within 12 hours–his knowledge of the settlements and his knowledge of the allegation details." n n"“The only one that I could recall after a day of trying to remember specifics, was once I referenced this lady’s height and I was standing near her, and I did this saying, you’re the same height of my wife, because my wife is five feet tall and she comes up to my chin,” said Cain." n nWhen there is this kind of disconnect between the quotes and interpretations, something else is at play. n nYou have to want to attack Cain to make what he said a big deal or revelation.
Oh, and…this is a sign of media bias. A clear one – even if what Cain is accused of warrants the media attention it is now getting (which I believe it doesn't (so far)): What the media chooses to cover – and not cover – exposes their bias. How they cover similar events in different ways also exposes bias.
From the NY Times: "The developments put new pressure on Mr. Cain’s campaign, as his own accounts evolved over a second day on Tuesday and new details raised questions over exactly what had taken place at the association. And his shifting answers continued to raise questions about the capabilities of a campaign that seasoned party hands still view with skepticism." n nThis is what journalism has become in America. No meat on the story. No key facts. Just hints of something called horrible and unnamed sources. A sensational accusation broached on the Internet and the media pounces with hairsplitting and "interpretation" of what is said in response to the accusation while it calls for more dirt-digging. Unless, of course, it involves someone the media likes. Then, they will do like Russert and claim a "Rev. Wright Free Zone" – or like with Bill Ayers and Obama or several of the Clinton sex scandals. If they like you, they ignore the Internet story hoping it does not go viral. Then, if they see it doing so, they come out shooting the story down – or – attack the accuser. n nHow this Cain story has come about and is evolving does expose how media bias works. n n"Four people with contemporaneous knowledge of the incident said the encounter had taken place in the context of a work outing during which there was heavy drinking, a hallmark, they said, of outings with an organization that represents the hospitality industry. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid being publicly drawn into the dispute, and declined to provide details of the encounter, saying they did not want to violate the privacy of the woman." n n4 unnamed sources. No details of what led to the accusation. And this is news… n nRev. Wright wasn't. Bill Ayers wasn't. Paula Jones wasn't. Juanita Broaddrick wasn't. The media had to be drug into those stories. They wouldn't touch them at all until people and groups managed to get information about them known wide enough that the media couldn't ignore them. Then, the media often played defense and attacked the accusers.