Ladies and Gentlemen, a gross and unspeakable crime is being conducted against the American People day in and day out. Many contemporary journalists dance around proverbial ‘ethical boundaries’ by writing to stir emotion without empirical support for the purpose of fullfilling an Agenda. It is fair to say that accusations can be directed toward both sides of the political arena.
But recently our ex-Washington Post writers over at POLITICO have danced well over the line into the blatantly reckless, un-American, garbage spewing standard that we measure the worst of the liberal elite (i.e. Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, all of MSNBC, and that Morning Joe closet liberal guy that makes my ears bleed when I switch the channel in the morning during a Squawkbox commercial break.)
This unspeakable crime is a technique utilized by the Politicos and Liberal Elite to go beyond biased finger-pointing and name calling by utilizing what most Americans consider to be ‘the Media’ to stir up popular consensus often without legitimate support (evidence), due-process, or even considerable thought.
This type of politicking is dangerous and goes way beyond finger-pointing because it hides the identity of the accusers (who are really rabble rousers) behind the guise of an un-biased Media. Fortunately with the advent of a ‘new media’ fueled by the dissatisfied once silent majority, these days, many people recognize the filthy journalism clogging up the airwaves. Alternative news outlets are popping up like sunflowers in a once crooked and barren wasteland (what Bill O’Reilley calls the spinzone).
[ASIDE: I will do my best to present my blog as one of these sunflowers–standing tall and beeming with unabashed and unwavering truth. Do not be fooled, however. Reality is a deeply personal paradigm–by nature. What I mean is, you will agree and disagree with me at varying degrees over varying topics, but I do not intend to take the responsibility of considering and presenting both sides to an issue lightly.]
However, when an Internet news outlet, like Politico, stirs up a mob of social speculation against untried accusations against Herman Cain, the cherished American principal of due process—that is “Innocent, until proven Guilty,” is thrown right out the window.
You may know exactly what I am talking about and can therefore skip the next three paragraphs to the “how to combat this crime” section. These next three paragraphs, however, provide a short account of my complaint against the reckless Liberal Media and, in this instance, specifically Politico.
Let’s briefly review what I am talking about: on 10/30/11, this last Sunday, politico broke a story saying that GOP Presidential Candidate hopeful, Herman Cain, was accused in the 1990s by at least two women of sexual harassment (later identified as ‘inappropriate behavior’) when he was head of the National Restaurant Association. It is clear that if the allegations were true, this revelation would be very damaging to the Cain Campaign, which I might add has been on a role. That said, one could also understand why someone with interest in seeing Cain fail (like a competing GOP candidate or, far mor likely, an Obama ally) would raise an allegation like this if they could support these serious allegations with fact and testimony (legal speak for ‘interview’). Surely even someone with an Agenda to see Cain fail would respect the democratic process enough to ensure that any allegation as severe and grotesque as this one, would be supported by if not air tight facts, at least details other than the vagaries that persist as long as five days later.
Here is what we know:
1. Cain was accused of sexual harassment by two female employees when Cain worked as the head of the National Restaurant Association.
2. A complaint was filed internally with the Association where, according to Politico’s anonymous source, the women complained of “sexually suggestive behavior” by Cain that “made them angry and uncomfortable.”
3. A settlement was arranged by the Association and the two women. (We later found out that Cain was not part of the settlement negotiations and that not only was he not a party in the settlement but that he was no longer working for the association when the matter was settled).
4. As condition to the settlement (by the way this is VERY typical), both parties (remember Cain is not a party) are subject to a confidentiality agreement and the settlement was sealed.
[ASIDE: let’s slow down here. This is important. The settlement is a legal thing and it needs to be understood. This issue could have gone to court and been tried in front of a jury and judge where at the end the jury would decide, based on the case presented by the plaintiff (the women) and the defendant (the Association or Cain–we are not sure), whether the allegation of sexual promiscuity is true and to what degree damages should be awarded, etc. Alternatively, in order to save the extraordinarily enormous legal costs of going to trial (we’re talkin’ several hundred thou), both sides came to a mutually agreeable settlement. In exchange for (enter award to women–we don’t know), the matter would be concluded and confidential forever. Phew! Now that we established all that legal Mumbai jumbo, we are clear: at no time has this matter been tried or has there been an admission of guilt.]
Here is what we don’t know:
1. The accusers’ identity
2. The specific allegation details regarding the sexual promiscuity as set forth in the internal Complaint
3. The location of a copy of the complaint., etc. etc.
As of 11/3/11, No one has provided any facts—concrete, alleged, imagined or real, in the matter raised by Politico about the settlement. As of 11/4/11, the original Complaint has not been produced by these women’s attorneys. In fact, the one attorney said he didn’t even know where he could find a copy.
As information and accusations took shape, reporters demanded that Herman Cain respond to accusations that he entered into a settlement with two women who he had sexually harassed. During the day that the story broke, Herman Cain learned more information and his responses developed throughout the day accordingly. Later, of course, the Media harangued Mr. Cain as a shady character that could not seem to keep his story straight, which is easy enough to believe if he actually had knowledge of the settlement (which he does not).
I started scratching my head however when I learned that Herman Cain was never a party to any settlement. The media continues demanding information from Cain on an agreement that he is not even a party. These women’s attorney initially been popping up on TV and in print indicating that his client could not wait to make a public announcement but that the confidentiality agreement precluded her from doing so. In what looked like an attempt to bring his client into the p,unlicensed arena, the accusers attorney pointed to Cain’s responses to Media questions as a violation of the silencing provisions making those provisions null and void. This is odd though. Since Cain was not a party to the settlement, he is not governed by a confidentiality agreement.
Meanwhile, no one knows who she is and now that she has the opportunity to come forward, due to the prosecutions own accusation that Cain violated a Confidentiality Agreement, has evidently not been nearly as excited to come forward as her counsel originally suggested. What is more, the actual defendant that was a party to the Confidentiality Agreement (the Association) came forward today and provided permission for the accusers to come forward and provide public testimony regardless of the silent provisions. The accusers have not yet come forward.
When you start paying attention to this “story”, the head scratching continues and one can start to realize that this story is complete garbage. It hardly qualifies itself as news, and for Politico to come forward with an accusation of such grave consequences without any confirmed facts, a copy of a settlement, or copy of the original complaint, etc. etc. Is reckless and even criminal.
To unleash the Liberal Media with generalities (no facts mind you because even a complaint would include untried allegations) on the Cain campaign, is a political and journalistic technique that I find, in my own opinion, to be a clear unmasking of Politico and to a greater degree, the Liberal Media, that finally shows their true colors. these journalists will cross ethical boundaries, disregard any professional journalism standard (like including sources and facts) and, worst of all, go to great lengths to concoct public show trials for the public st the expense of Justice And Liberty For All.
So here we are, a few months away from picking the GOP Candidate and we are focused on this garbage. Journalists have continued to ask cain to respond to these allegations with the delight of knowing that there is no way for him to respond as he does not know the details of the case.
To make this crystal clear, the American People have presented with no facts, no specifics regarding the subject incident, no specifics regarding the accusers, no Complaint that would have originally have been filed (once filed all Complaints are available to the public), and no evidnce or support of these currently unidentified accusations. Meanwhile, reckless reporters continue to harangue Cain for answers: “The People deserve the Truth!” And now the pundits call Cain a flip-flopper, a shifty individual that refuses to respond to the issue at hand. Meanwhile, there is no way for Cain to even know what the accusations are (specifically). Pundits are now critiquing the Cain campaign on their coordinated response as if how they ‘handle’ this type of slander could in any way gauge how he would fair under the pressure of office.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is criminal, plain and simple. The solution resides between your ears. That’s right –you are responsible for considering both sides to a story, the manner in which it is being presented, and your concluded opinion on the matter.
[ASIDE: let it be known that I am not exclusively a Cain supporter. I have not decided who I like out of the GOP candidates. I decided to kickoff my blog on this topic, not to defend one man and speak to one issue but to point to a larger sickness in this country. That sickness is the Mob Mentality. It takes over whenever an audience adopts whatever perspective a pundit regurgitates simply because it is being conveyed and not because, as a result of careful consideration of both sides to an issue, did the person actively choose their opinion. Americans are learning to take responsibility for mastering their opinions–cherishing them and keeping them locked away from the human tendency to conform with public consensus. Doesn’t that feel good?]
You have to remain speculative until the end. Remain flexible. Do not adopt an opinion until you have heard all sides because Human Nature is to defend one’s adopted position even if the opposing argument is more accurate. But I might make one final suggestion: a complementary solution is to focus on the topics that actually matter: the issues that face this nation and these Great People.
Welcome to “Your Opinion Matters”