Sunday, August 05, 2007

EDWARDS IN A BIZ HATE & $WITCH

 
Okay, granted the New York Post is a trashy news rag (as evidenced by the article title), but this is the essence of what's mucking up intelligent debate.  I'm not an Edwards fan, but someone's going to read this and think he's a hypocrite on this, when the reality is, this is pure spin by one of Rupert Murdoch's publications in making Hillary look less bad.  There's a clear difference in the two situations: Edwards engaged in a business transaction where his role was to provide a book (with all royalties going to charity, no less!), and Murdoch's organization was to drive sales - each provided a service, and each was rewarded for it.  This, as to opposed to Hillary who received campaign contributions for as-yet-to-be-determined services on the political front.
 
Murdoch has made it clear (I can dig up the links if necessary) that his plan is to get Hillary the Democratic nomination, because there are so many moderates on both sides that would refuse to vote for her that it would practically guarantee a Republican victory (and if he's wrong, hey, he still contributed to the President).  So be it, that's up to him - but when those efforts appear in widely-distributed news channels as evidence and intentionally twisted away from the reality of the situations, it stinks.
 
So here's my question: How do we get past this noise to see the reality of situations?  Is the assumption that the market will see through this and that no one will read the NY Post (or take it seriously)?  Is something further needed?

No comments: