The James Taranto edition of the WSJ's deafening silence over the Mark Sanford scandal continues
July 01, 2009 9:57 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Taranto writes the Journal's Best of the Web column, and boy the Sanford story couldn't be of less interest to the very serious conservative writer. Forget that an embattled Republican governor, who used taxpayer money to visit his girlfriend and is in danger of being driven from office. For Taranto, who covers the waterfront each day for the Journal highlighting the day's most important political developments, the Sanford saga is a total non-starter.
In the five Best of Web editions published since the Sanford shocker broker, Taranto has linked to approximately 250 items. How many of those dealt with Sanford? Approximately ten. Which means yes, less than three percent of the stories that Taranto has been flagging since the middle of last week are about Sanford, because his very public fall from grace is of no interest to Journal writers; the same Journal writers who literally could not sleep at night during the 1990's knowing that Bill Clinton had not yet been impeached or put in jail for his allegedly abusive and selfish ways.
UPDATED: If and when Sanford is forced to resign from office (driven by Republicans, is my hunch), will ''journalists' at the WSJ opinion pages then decide to weigh in? Or is the story still going to be pretty much ignored on the paper's editorial page?
UPDATED: The Journal couldn't care less about Sanford, but if you want to learn how Franken stole the Minnesota election, then today's Journal is the place for you.
And yes, the Journal called Norm Coleman's nearly eight-month-late concession "graceful."
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
The same guy that was grandstanding about his refusal to take stimulus money. Who has made 'traditional family values' a la Dan Quayle a cornerstone of his political life. Was bopping around the globe on someone elses dime because he mistook attraction to his position for personal connection? I'm glad you pointed this out but maybe running with a story like this hits too close to home for the WSJ's readership. It could be very dangerous to circulation if they start questioning the right of ceo's to use the company treasury as their own piggy bank while they troll for trophy wives in the countries where they have their tax shelters. It's a heck of a problem, how to report on Sanford without tweaking egos. Isn't the mid-life crisis the wall street equivilant of spring break?
But, you know, I don't remember MMFA finding great fault with Gov. Spitzer. I'd expect that the pointy-heads at MMFA also think Ted Kennedy is a great American statesman. So did Mary Jo Kopechkne until he left her to drown. I don't remember a lot of liberal outrage when Barney Frank was fixing tickets for his boyfriend's clients who parked illegally while frolicking in Frank's basement.
Taranto has linked to 10 stories about Sanford? Must have been slow news days. Actually, Taranto is usually pretty substantive and clever.
And Democrats are quite capable of stealing elections. They tried to steal the 2000 presidential election, they stole the gubernatorial election in Washington a few years back, and the same political hacks that heisted Washington's governorship apparently have succeeded in placing a total goof ball in the U.S. Senate. At least he will fit right in.
Among which is lying, which you do a lot of (see below).
But, you know, I don't remember MMFA finding great fault with Gov. Spitzer.
Irrelevant, since MMFA monitors conservative misinformation in the media. More to the point, did MMFA ever defend Spitzer? Of course not.
I'd expect that the pointy-heads at MMFA also think Ted Kennedy is a great American statesman.
That's name-calling, failed mind-reading, and more irrelevancy.
So did Mary Jo Kopechkne until he left her to drown. I don't remember a lot of liberal outrage when Barney Frank was fixing tickets for his boyfriend's clients who parked illegally while frolicking in Frank's basement.
What any of this has to do with MMFA's clearly-stated mission is beyond me.
Taranto has linked to 10 stories about Sanford? Must have been slow news days. Actually, Taranto is usually pretty substantive and clever.
Yes, he's been cleverly avoiding substance.
And Democrats are quite capable of stealing elections.
Where did that come from? There's nothing in this article about stolen elections. Score another for utter irrelevancy.
They tried to steal the 2000 presidential election,
Wow, revisionism strikes from deep right field. That's like saying that the Native Americans tried to steal the American West from the White Man.
they stole the gubernatorial election in Washington a few years back,
I don't know the particulars, but with your penchant for falsehoods, I'm going to go out on a limb and call this a lie. I suspect it will save time.
and the same political hacks that heisted Washington's governorship apparently have succeeded in placing a total goof ball in the U.S. Senate.
That total goof ball is also a Harvard graduate, which I'm guessing you're not, and has been a respected voice in politics for decades. I have no doubt he will strengthen the Senate.
At least he will fit right in.
Anyone care to tabulate edross' batting average? Anyone who can swing and miss so effectively I think can be put on the "totally ignorable" list.
George Bush was also a Harvard (and Yale) graduate yet many Bush bashers called him much worse than a goof ball. Heck, he even got better grades than John Kerry at Yale.
""It's that the president got EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR OVER A YEAR and the governor got ALMOST NOTHING AT ALL.""
Ahem. I think it had something to do with Clinton lying under oath to a federal grand jury in the Paula Jones case, for which he was disbarred in Arkansas for 5 years. What a slap on the wrist that was.
We don't know how much Eric Boehlert gets paid for working at MediaMutters.org, but even if he does it gratis, George Soros is not getting his money's worth. Boehlert criticized this column yesterday in a real head-scratcher of a post:
[James] Taranto writes the Journal's Best of the Web column, and boy the [Mark] Sanford story couldn't be of less interest to the very serious conservative writer. . . . For Taranto, who covers the waterfront each day for the Journal highlighting the day's most important political developments, the Sanford saga is a total non-starter. . . .
Less than three percent of the stories that Taranto has been flagging since the middle of last week are about Sanford, because his very public fall from grace is of no interest to Journal writers; the same Journal writers who literally could not sleep at night during the 1990's knowing that Bill Clinton had not yet been impeached or put in jail for his allegedly abusive and selfish ways.
It's an odd but common criticism that so-and-so writer or blogger has not written about such-and-such topic. It seldom seems to occur to the critics that so-and-so may simply be uninterested in such-and-such, or have nothing of interest to say about it.
But Boehlert's criticism is even more weird, because it has no basis in reality. We have written extensively on the Sanford story--last Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and this Tuesday. Further, we are almost certain Boehlert's claim that our colleagues "literally could not sleep at night during the 1990s" is sheer fantasy. We don't recall any discussion of insomnia around the office, and we very much doubt our colleagues would have confided in Boehlert about any sleep difficulties they were having.
Boehlert seems to suspect some sort of political bias (in an opinion column, heaven forbid!) because our imaginary lack of coverage of the Sanford story contrasts with our treatment of President Clinton's impeachment. This column did not even exist at the time Clinton was impeached, but we will concede that if it did, we probably would have written more about Clinton then than we are writing about Sanford now.
This hypothetical discrepancy is quite easy to explain. Clinton was president of the United States; Sanford is merely governor of a medium-size state. Anything the president does is much bigger news than if the South Carolina governor does the same thing. A few weeks ago President Obama made headlines just by taking his wife out on a date. Can you imagine anyone paying attention if Sanford took his wife out? Well, before last week, we mean.
MediaMutters styles itself a media watchdog or critic or something along those lines. Wouldn't you think the people it employs would at least have some rudimentary understanding of news judgment?
Boehlert said "Less than three percent of the stories that Taranto has been flagging since the middle of last week are about Sanford". No indication from Taranto if that's incorrect or not.
"Clinton was president of the United States; Sanford is merely governor of a medium-size state." -- readily acknowledged by Foser in his weekly column. But it's not that the president gets more than a governor. It's that the president got EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR OVER A YEAR and the governor got ALMOST NOTHING AT ALL.
Uhhh ... I think there was something beyond his "abusive and selfish ways" you seem to be forgetting. Let me help you:
Did Bill Clinton lie under oath? Yes, by his own admission.
Did Scooter Libby lie to the FBI? A federal jury said he did.
Did you root for Libby's conviction, Eric? Why?
The facts are always dependent on your politics, aren't they?