zer0netgain wrote:
Utter BS.
First, if you don't have names and specifics, it didn't happen.
The media loves to attack the front runner.
This dirt is probably handed over to the media anonymously, and they, of course, don't want to dig for the facts themselves to prove anything before confronting the candidate.
News flash....
1. Anyone can claim sexual harassment. It does not mean any harassment ever happened.
2. Many sexual harassment cases are settled out of court. It does not prove harassment happened. Often, it is cheaper to just pay off the plaintiff than go through the cost and torture of a trial not knowing who the jury's sympathies will side with.
They wanted Cain to admit that out-of-court settlements were made. First, that would probably violate the confidentiality agreements the parties agreed to as part of the settlement. Second, even if he admitted it happened, it would then be taken as an admission that he did sexually harass two people and the media spin would never stop.
The proper thing is to give no reply and demand that the media PROVE something happened with details of who is making the claim and what they claim happened. If the media can't get the plaintiffs to break the silence, then saying anything will only open a can of worms that always works against you.
The media mostly operates by suggestion now anyway. They've become such experienced storytellers, you almost never know what
really happened. They advance their agenda by crafting wildly misleading declarative statements, and then placing question marks at the ends to keep themselves out of trouble. Example: Chris Wallace to Michelle Bachmann: He wants to say to her, during his interview, "You are a flake." But that would get him in big trouble, because as a professional reporter he's supposed to appear detatched. So instead, he rephrases his statement into news-speak: "Are you a flake?" It's not a serious question, it's a direct implication. (Bachmann hit it out of the park, but that's beside the point.)
Another linguistic device the media are tireless at exploiting -- which allows them to claim
anything, no matter how ridiculous, and get away with it -- is qualifying sentences with "might", "may", and "could". Without these three words, half of all "news stories" wouldn't exist.
Last edited by Ragtime on 31 Oct 2011, 11:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.