digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo…

While Sanford 'hiked,' right-wing press kissed staff's ass

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo… — A South Carolina paper has used a public records request to obtain emails sent to and from Gov. Mark Sanford's office during the hectic few days last month when he had gone missing. They show, among other things, an effort by the right-wing media to curry favor with Sanford's office by dismissing the story as nothing but liberal media hype.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 15, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

75 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jeffbw, on 07/14/2009, -15/+89Sure, anything bad that Republicans do is liberal media hype.
  • dagnabbit, on 07/14/2009, -8/+40Josh Marshall calls it "hacks on parade". What an embarrassment - your obvious bias toward a disgraced right-wing governor laid out for all to see.
  • subliminali, on 07/15/2009, -0/+28i dont think even the most liberal left winger dreamed of what this story would become when it was first reported that Sanford went hiking. I'll admit when I first heard the report my reaction was 'so what?' the dude just went for a walk.' Argentinian mistress was my second guess though, i swear.
  • ddawggin, on 07/15/2009, -3/+29"As you may know, I declared myself Governor of South Carolina last night. I went power mad for abut 40 seconds before learning that Gov. Sanford was returning today.
    If the governor is looking for a friendly place to make light of what I think is a small story that got blown out of scale I would be happy to have him on. In person here, on the phone, or in South Carolina.

    Stay strong, Stephen"

    That silly Stephen Colbert, what will he do next?
  • BIGOTHER1, on 07/14/2009, -7/+31To what degree are major news media bosses part of the religious cult of the world domination of the upside down Christianity of Coe, Cunningham & co?
  • Pyros7, on 07/15/2009, -1/+23Democracy in America will continue to falter until both sides realize that both sides have people among them that will occasionally do things like cheat on their wives. For now, it reflects poorly on the Republicans. The next time, it'll reflect poorly on the other side. Aren't there more important issues before us than who's ***** whom in America (or Argentina, whatever the case may be).

    Personally, I don't give the average American citizen that much credit. We cheer for our chosen political party with all the open-mindedness that we drunkenly cheer for a sports team that hasn't won a championship in 100 years.
  • MWeather, on 07/15/2009, -2/+19Yep, like how the liberal media was totally dismissive about the whole Clinton sex scandal.
  • otbeverly, on 07/15/2009, -2/+19I work at a (un)fairly right-wing rag. Some, uh, people in charge (I guess I could get more specific, it's not like they'd know how to use Digg) are pretty backwards. I mean, it would take you two days in the newsroom to spot where the problems are. The lack of leadership is astounding ... and they wonder why print media is going under. They continue the same old practices of hiring lazy "veterans" for things like web work and other management positions. I'll key on the web work since this is where "we are focusing all our attention." Of course they couldn't explain HOW they're doing this and the hiring of people who are constantly trying to catch up to technology doesn't help, but this is how it's always been done so, of course, no one should attempt to right the ship.

    But the anti-Obama nonsensical rhetoric on the editorial page is nothing if not humorous at times. The only problem is that far too many believe it without looking at the lack of logic in their conclusions. Traditional media is basically a dying crony-driven cesspool. The environment of stimulating thought is now gone, replaced by thought police scrutinizing every word you say in the office or in print to legitimize their position. Sadly, executives and publishers promote this environment while at the same time preaching efficiency in other areas. They also think it's OK to give themselves raises while forcing the rest of the workforce to take a 3 percent pacut or furlough, then preach about keeping spirits high (easy for them to say). The rats are trying to squeeze that last drop of blood out of print media ... someone should go ahead and euthanize it.
  • MixMastaKooz, on 07/15/2009, -0/+13No, it reflects poorly on Republicans more so because they define marriage and sexual behavior in moral terms. Democrats, who support marriage equality and equal rights for gays/lesbians do so from a civil rights position. When you're arguing from morality, you damn well have your morals reflect your behavior.
  • MWeather, on 07/15/2009, -1/+11"For now, it reflects poorly on the Republicans. The next time, it'll reflect poorly on the other side."

    The other side doesn't campaign on family values and Christianity. It's still bad, but nearly as bad.
  • consonance, on 07/15/2009, -0/+10Zarchon, you have missed the entire point of the gay rights issue. The use of the word "marriage" is entirely about equality and by extension civil rights. The whole issue is that gay people want to be treated like straight people, who can marry. Gay marriage means that gays are treated like straight people. The reason that the advocacy is for "marriage" and not civil unions lies in the "separate but equal" fallacy--there's nothing that's separate but equal. Equality only works when _everyone_ is treated the same way.
  • MWeather, on 07/15/2009, -0/+8Did he seriously argue that a "separate but equal" policy is not about civil rights?
  • rabidjester, on 07/15/2009, -0/+8"In an email to Sanford press secretary Joel Sawyer, Brendan Miniter, an editor of the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, called out his own paper's first-day coverage (sub. req.) of the story, writing: "Someone at WSJ should be fired for today's story. Ridiculous."

    Ya, can't have your paper actually behaving like a newspaper! The WSJ has fallen so far recently, it's almost depressing. Was such an excellent paper.
  • Craig304958, on 07/15/2009, -1/+9You needed to indiate "/sarcasm" or some such at the end so a few literal-minded types would understand the underlying snort.
  • MWeather, on 07/15/2009, -2/+10And that makes it OK.
  • skunkman62, on 07/15/2009, -0/+7wow...it sucks to be you
  • bubba9999, on 07/15/2009, -2/+9signed, Grandma.
  • skinsgamer, on 07/15/2009, -2/+9Dugg for Stephen Colbert. ..

    Actually I really didn't digg it, this story is kinda lame...

    But if I would have, it would have been for Colbert.
  • TinternAbbot, on 07/15/2009, -9/+16I'm sure there's a story here, but I just...can't...seem...to...find...it.
  • Craig304958, on 07/15/2009, -0/+7Kinda like the Bush administration, especially in the last two or three years, huh? The ideologues grabbing hold ever more desperately and rigidly as support erodes from under them, and blaming it all on anyone but themselves. But the corporate-owned broadcast media are the real problem as the days of newsprint dominance wind down. Network news departments are probably as bad as your paper, or worse, at separating fact from ideology. Didn't a Univ. of Maryland study a couple years back show that CBS News viewers were as misinformed about the politial build-up to war in Iraq as Fox News viewers? Only PBS viewers were significantly better informed about basics like Sadam's nonexistent links to the Saudis who run al-Qaeda, IIRC.

    Upton Sinclair explained it back in the 1870s: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
  • NinjaDolemite, on 07/15/2009, -0/+6wait wait!

    I thought the media had a LIBERAL bias!

    /s
  • MWeather, on 07/15/2009, -0/+5"But I don't see why we have to regurgitate the same stories over and over again in my view about Republicans being biased towards Republicans, and Democrats being biased towards Democrats."

    Because it shouldn't be happening and it keeps happening, why else?
  • Craig304958, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4LOL Good imitation of the baffled "news" departments
  • DealCracker, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4Right, Left who cares! Politicians are predominantly sleaze balls and the press are predominantly shills Meanwhile the country goes down the crapper. If you want real change (not the Obama variety), ignore the press and vote for independents.
  • Elranzer, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5He's doing a good job smearing himself. He admitted to everything.
  • inactive, on 07/15/2009, -1/+5Of course he's biased. He's not a news anchor; he's a commentator. He uses his show, Countdown, to promote his opinion. The difference, you see, is that Olbermann, unlike a lot of Fixed News commentators, forms his opinions based on the facts of the matter. He lets people speak for themselves and doesn't make ***** up.
  • DangerCollie, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4The WSJ has turned in just another Rupert Murdoch fish wrapper. Really is too bad. It used to be a really good paper.
  • sutherbj, on 07/15/2009, -0/+4Exactly, politics and sports today have fulfilled our ancient desire of war.
  • richirwin, on 07/15/2009, -3/+6I dugg you up, just so I could digg you down twice.
  • Elranzer, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3Separate-but-equal is never acceptable. It's un-American.
  • falconear, on 07/15/2009, -0/+3It just proves that nobody knew just how damned crazy this story would end up being. I figured it was some kind of communication error OUTSIDE of the Gov's office. Once I heard Argentina and Republican, I figured there was a teenage latino boy involved, but I digress...I was close though. :)
  • cygnus2112, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2Partisans will always defend their own. There were people who denied Bill Clinton was sticking his cigar in an intern. There were people who refused to believe that John Edwards would sleep around on his cancer-stricken wife. There are people who will say Larry Craig was just asking for toilet paper.

    The trick is to not try to become so biased in your political beliefs that your judgment of politicians is skewed in their favor. Your viewpoints already seem compromised too - Josh Marshall?!

    Why is this news again?

  • deweyhewson, on 07/15/2009, -1/+3Politics will continue to fail in this country as long as people continue to vote for people based on whether they committed adultery or not and not based on their positions on the issues.

    Also, tangentially, the Republican party will continue to fail in this country as long as they try to set themselves up on the pedestal of moral authority and constantly reveal themselves for the hypocrites they are.
  • Wreckage, on 07/15/2009, -4/+6The moral majority would never do anything unethical. It's against their religion and politics. Or is it?
  • DangerCollie, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2Yeah, you don't hear the Democrats running on family values, pushing a religious legislative agenda, and trying to posture as some moral crusaders.

    The reason it gets so much air play when Republicans do it is because they're hypocrites.
  • inactive, on 07/15/2009, -1/+3I specifically remember listening to both Gambling and Hannity, who both said when it first came out that there was something fishy about this whole, "missing in the Appalachians" and/or "away writing his book" business.
  • DangerCollie, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2It's an easy mistake. He said "banging Argentinian tail" they thought he said "hiking Appalachian Trail". Garbled cell phone connection, that could happen.




    *snicker*
  • Anightowl, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2The only media-worthy part of the whole story was that he left without notifying his staff on how to contact him. That's it. Even that is pretty minor, since there is a lt. governor to run things when he's not around. A 2nd page blurb in the state at best.

    Somehow this turned into a big media hype though. Personally, I couldn't care less if he's cheating on his wife or not. Is he running the state well? Does he have good policies and follow through with them? What goes on between him and his wife (and apparently another woman) is the business of those involved, and just doesn't even raise an eyebrow with me. People have cheated on their spouses for as long as there has been marriage, this being the huge deal it's hyped into being simply boggles me.

    Now pointing at right wing papers for not giving a damn about it? Oh no, someone didn't care about something that doesn't have anything to do with them, the world is going to end!
  • xmzx, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2Good read.
  • skunkman62, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2no, but as one great anchor would say: "that's the way it is"
  • Pedestrian101, on 07/22/2009, -0/+1Buried for worst submission title of the day.
  • consonance, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2He didn't explicitly say it. I believe it was implied, since Zarchon specifically brought up the use of the word "marriage," which is one potential outcome for gays in their civil rights campaign. In the larger political context, Zarchon is suggesting that an outcome such as "unions" might be acceptable to gays who are looking for "marriage" for associated societal connotations.
  • falconear, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1NorthMass: It IS ridiculous. Rush and the others are a bunch of assclowns, but taking them seriously is almost worst. It's like getting hit by an infant and demanding he be charged with assault. Now, Keith rightly points out evil statements at times and demands some payback - like the guy (a terrorism expert) who went on Glenn Beck the other day and said our best hope was for Osama to attack the U.S. so we'd get our acts together, and was SERIOUS! Olbermann called for the guy to lose his job, and rightly so.

    But harping on everything Rush says and demanding he be investigated, or resign, or whatever? Silly posturing. Now, like I said, this MAY be his form of sarcasm, of putting it back in their faces. But, if that's the case, he needs to be a little more overt in it.
  • scriptcoder, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1Hmmm...So you're saying Digg should censor information and ads to their political likings.

    I do not agree with that. Sorry.
  • Atario, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1We liberals don't care so much about the infidelity. It's (1) the hypocrisy ("we conservatives are more moral than those sloppy liberals", and then whoops) and (2) the dereliction of duty (the guy didn't even let anyone in his staff know what the hell was going on while he ran off for days, much less properly transferred power to his subordinate).
  • FyberOptic, on 07/15/2009, -1/+2Lame. I read Digg through my Google Reader subscription, and this article had a "Support SarahPAC" ad below it, with Palin's big dumb face plastered over top of the ad. I know that the ads are through Google, but give me a break. Surely they can choose the kinds of content/people they want on their site. Otherwise I'll just block out all the ads.
  • falconear, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1GrizAK: Once again, I'm a big fan of Countdown, but you have to admit that sometimes Keith goes over the top. I agree that uncalled for comments need to be called out, but I'm just saying that there are times when the other side is obviously being sarcastic themselves, and he should recognize that.
  • inactive, on 07/15/2009, -1/+1falconear, I disagree. When somebody makes a truly horrible joke, like Pat Buchanan's "I hope Levi Johnston gets drowned" comment, it's not funny and it's not acceptable. Of course somebody with a sharp tongue like Olbermann should get all over that. That kind of a joke shouldn't even be said aloud and deserves to be criticized harshly.
  • falconear, on 07/15/2009, -2/+2I tell ya, I LOVE Countdown, but Keith is slowly turning into a left-wing version of O'Reilly. Yeah, his opinions are based on facts, but his conclusions based on those facts are getting a little out there. Anytime anybody does anything a little wrong he demands they resign. Also, jerk-offs like Limbaugh can't even make jokes anymore without Olbermann insisting they were dead serious.

    Either that or he's trying to be sarcastic with his "you know that's TREASON, right?" comments, but if so he needs to work on it. Or have a /s tag. ;)
  • NorthMass, on 07/16/2009, -1/+1Thank you falconear for realizing that Olbermann's demand for Limbaugh and Beck and others to be charged with treason is ridiculous. I'm not a fan of Rush, but he just made a joke and Olbermann comes on demanding the DHS(which he used to oppose) charge him with treason.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.