Monday, March 22, 2010

A Good Question

Yglesias writes:
why does a former Senator’s [John Edwards] scandalous affair attract more attention than John Ensign’s less-salacious but more-illegal conduct?

Matt seems to see this as some inherent media bias when the difference is completely clear to FLG:
1) Edwards wife has cancer.
2) There is a baby involved.
3) The most important difference to FLG -- Edwards had the balls to straight out lie to the American people when he was running for president. (Yes, Clinton lied too. Yes, it's a personal matter. It's still a major character flaw and I certainly don't want to go through another Monica thing in my lifetime.)
4) And the most important reason for the coverage disparity -- the media, for any number of reasons, passed on the story and was scooped by the National Enquirer. The media is overcovering it to compensate for their initial fuck up when they believed Edwards' bullshit.


Andrew Stevens said...

Most important is actually:

5) John Edwards is a nationally known figure. John Ensign is not.

While media bias does exist, the most obvious bias of the media is always "Does the public care about this?" So Yglesias should be asking why does the public care about Edwards, but not Ensign and, when framed that way, the answer is really obvious. Nobody knows who the hell Ensign is.

Anonymous said...

Much of the answer is right there: 'more salacious' - how good does it have to get? There's a sex tape. His beard lied about paternity. John Ensign wasn't near as much fun. dave.s.

Anonymous said...

Dennis the Peasant agrees with me!


FLG said...

Dennis is my kind of guy.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.