Time Mag Slams Media for Edwards Coverage; Says Reporters Making "A Dumb Argument"

Two weeks ago, I asked a pretty simple question: What is real-life hypocrisy, and what is faux hypocrisy manufactured by the political Punditburo in lieu of actual reporting? I asked this question in the wake of right-wing Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi screaming from the ramparts about how John Edwards is supposedly a hypocrite for having an ownership stake in an investment fund that has ownership stakes in some subprime lenders. I asserted that just because a candidate wants to change the laws that govern the land (in this case, lending laws) doesn't mean they don't live in the current world as it is, and certainly doesn't mean they are a hypocrite. It doesn't mean they've made a smooth political move -- but again it doesn't even come close to meaning they are a hypocrite.

Shocker, my view hasn't really broken the Washington Punditburo's fabricate-a-gotcha rituals -- though finally, at least one of the big traditional media outlets has actually taken the time to report the Edwards situation accurately. None other than Time magazine sets the record straight this week about Edwards, and indirectly indicts the absurdly biased and irresponsible behavior by campaign reporters and pundits alike:

"Another challenge is that much of the attention he's gotten recently has been the unflattering kind, stories that question his sincerity and assail his image as a fighter for the little guy by focusing on his pricey haircuts, huge house and hedge-fund job. These viral attacks, spreading from the Drudge Report and other blogs to newspapers everywhere, make a dumb argument. They assume that someone who's wealthy can't be a sincere advocate for poor and working people. By that logic, the healthy can't speak on behalf of the sick, or whites on behalf of people of color...Here's what would truly be hypocritical: if Edwards spoke out on behalf of the disadvantaged while pushing policies that benefit the rich. This he does not do. He favors boosting the capital-gains tax rate for families earning over $250,000 and closing the loophole that allows fund managers -- like those at Fortress Investment Group, where he earned almost $500,000 in 2006 -- to get taxed at just 15 percent. 'He wants to take money away from the people who paid him,' says deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. 'That's not hypocrisy. That's sincerity.'"

That's exactly right. No one is saying Edwards' moves have been perfectly smooth, but the idea that his actions are somehow hypocritical or that they undermine his credibility on the major issues he's campaigning on (and has made his life's career about) is just ridiculous.

And let's be clear: On the flip side, we know what true hypocrisy is. To refresh your memory, here are some examples (in no particular order):

• U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer (R-CO) grandstanding and telling his fellow school board commissioners to disclose their conflicts of interest, and then himself refusing to disclose his own conflicts of interest.
• Mitt Romney (R) campaigning for governor aggressively billing himself as pro-choice to the point where he gets angry at his opponent for saying otherwise. And then, just a few short years later, campaigning for president declaring he's the greatest anti-choice leader in contemporary American history.
• Presidential candidate Fred Thompson (R) billing himself as a down-home political outsider even though he's spent most of his adult life as a corporate lobbyist in Washington.
• President George Bush portraying himself as a plain-spoken cowboy and independent entrepreneurial businessman even though he grew up an aristocrat and had his personal fortunes built by massive public subsidies secured by his father's financial and political network.
• Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani (R) presenting himself as the strongest candidate in the race on homeland security issues, even though his single defining homeland security experience was negligently contributing to the health plight of New York firefighters.
• Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D) billing herself as the candidate of "change" and the candidate who will represent the middle class, at the same time Businessweek reports that she is allowing Wall Street titans to "refine" her economic policy platform.

Now, I'm not naive. I realize it is probably more fun for reporters and pundits to fulminate about John Edwards' haircuts and to make up gotcha narratives -- all while giving probably the most serious speech in the last last 30 years of presidential campaign politics just 275 words on page A15. It is more fun, and requires no actual work, reporting or thinking -- you know, those old-fashioned and unfortunately outdated tenets of "journalism." But at least one magazine managed to get the story right about Edwards -- and about the media. It's not much -- but it is a start.

Cross-posted from Working Assets

Comments

[SecondCity]

Yes, Sen. Edwards voted for the Iraq war funding in 2002 (to the poster on pg. one who inquired, and yes, he has expressed profound, sincere regret as openly as any human being could be capable of doing.

Edwards is taking money from his fellow lawyers - so what? Those trial lawyers are the same people ensure that physicians treat us as human beings, not just bodies. I'm in a position to know. Lawyers saved my partner's life.

Sen. Edwards refers to his website, because he has THE MOST DETAILED, COMPREHENSIVE, AND SINCERE positions on ALL the major issues of importance to American voters. HE crafted and wrote those papers - as contrasted with Sen. Obama, who, when critisized for lack of clarity on positions, had his staffers draw "his" positions up - he's still trying to remember them.

Sen. Clinton crafts her positions based on Wall Street and the Lobbyists who own her - and tell her what to think, speak, and feel (sound familiar???).

And finally, as a gay man who counts African-Americans among my personal friends, it sure got under MY skin when Obama stated at the HRC "Gay Debate" that, although gays should be seen as equal in his community, our "situation" (?) doesn't begin to compare to the "crisis the black family is facing today." Sen. Obama went on to assert that African Americans are being used as "political footbals." (That was in response to a question from a well-respected, black Washington Post reporter about rampant homophobia in the black community, and what Obama would do to end it if he were president.)

ALL the presidential candidates are millionaires many times over. ALL of them own huge homes - most several. Bobby Kennedy didn't take a vow of poverty before he began fighting for the disenfranchished and the poor. Edwards, in my opinion, is the RFK of our time - and hopfully not ahead of his time. Even his expensive haircuts don't mitigate his genuine integrity.

DO visit his website - those of you who want more than a juicy tidbit or a soundbite.

[drblack]

Time is a waste of paper.
Edwards was doing great until he said he would make Biannual doctor examines mandatory in order to get health care.
This would be a step toward total tyranny and would set up all sorts of abuse and fascist control.

[Halsey]

David...it hit me...in your post...if (albeit unlikely). Edwards rightfully gets the nod from democrats..me thinks YOU will be named press secretary..and while you're quite young..Youth does not preclude you from being..well..a very smart guy!. I hope John sees your work..I hope John IS our next president..(Richardson as VEEP..or at least Secy's of State)...and YOU as press secretary..

[PerryWhite]

What the press should be reporting about Edwards is that he is a socialist who is planning to redistribute income and wealth which will destroy the country.

[Tommymac]

Give me a break. Go back to 1950.

[GenericBlogger]

Edwards recently stated in a speech that Americans are willing to sacrifice their SUVs.

John Edwards owns an SUV. Does this strengthen his image if he continues to own his SUV?

Further reading at HuffPo's article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/29/edwards-americans-willin_n_62385.html

[lawyerboyd]

As a Dem, I've not committed my support, and Edwards was/is in the running. As a lawyer who handles consumer matters and is aware of what some hedge funds do to the average investor by their "actions", I have politely asked his campaign to explain his employment and investment in an industry that I see no differently than tobacco, insurance companies and other zillion dollar businesses that make tons of money by screwing consumers.

Now, mind you, I'm on Edwards' e-mail list and get them all the time. Only once did a get even an attempt at a reply to my inquiry, and it completely was a non-answer. Needless to say, very disappointing since all I asked was for an explanation.

Your colummn is simply wrong. Sure, John can advocate for the less fortunate, but there is something very wrong with him working for and investing in the very types of companies that take advantage of, well everything and everybody just to turn a buck. I don't know if the proper word is "hypocrisy", but it is somethinig: maybe "greed"; maybe just plain "stupid" when you're killing time until you launch your Presidential campaign.

John could've done anything he wanted with his time and money when he did this. That his choice was what it was says volumes about his character.

And, everytime I hear or see him, I can't get past that fact.

And, so we're clear, it had nothing to do with haircuts. I'm not sure that building a fortress to live in was particularly good timing or sends the right message, but it means everything that he chose the hedgies to work for and invest millions of dollars in - not years ago, but when he knew he was about to run for President as the so-called voice of the average person - and won't even give me the courtesy of an honest answer to a very legitimate question from a potential supporter.

Yes, I will support a Dem whoever that happens to be - unless there is a viable inde ticket.

[WorkingClass]

The corporate media will decide who will be president unless and until Joe Sixpack figures out the game. A hand full of monopolists control the media in the United States. Remember what they did to Gore? They said he was a liar. George Bush on the other hand was a hail fellow well met.

The media attack Edwards because they see him as a threat to the interests of unregulated global monopolists. This is reason enough to support John Edwards. The media have limited our choice to Clinton or Obama because they are friendly to the interests of unregulated global monopolists. This is reason enough to shun Clinton and Obama.

I am a registered Democrat but I usually only vote for Democrats in the primaries. I wont vote for a corporatist so in the general election I usually end up voting for a green or a socialist or an independent. My choice of declared candidates at this time is Richardson but I would also vote for Edwards in the primary.

As for the horse race - its fixed. The presumptive nominees will be Hillary and Rudy. After February, some independent might step forward to save us (Gore?) but I doubt it. Interestingly, the ruling class seems to have anointed Hillary. I believe they regret their choice of Bush and now view the Republican party as spoiled goods. So it will be president Hillary unless W decides to stay on.

Thank you David. Its a great post as always.

[mdtaichi]

Hypocrite's Hit Parade
Your synopsis of and commentary on the insight offered by Time Magazine's recent article on the Edwards candidacy was courageous. (Truthfully...we all live with the knowledge that they know where we live.)
Meanwhile, the NY Times continues to shamelessly shill for Hillary. If we ask ourselves, "Who the hell is paying these people?" we already know the answer. There are only five major media conglomerates and a wealthy family or two owning and controlling each broadcast networking outlet. That's barely over-simplified as the concentration is that extreme.
The American disparity of economic resources (worst since the Great Depression) will ruin us as a unified country if we don't stand up and take back our Constitutionally granted political powers.
As a New Yorker, I want to say that a Giuliani administration would be as bad as Bush. Lobbyist Fred Thompson...worse.
The right-wing swiftboaters would have us believe that we shoot at our own troops if we let them.
As reasoning and spiritual people, we must not allow the Washington culture of corruption to continue. Enough is enough is long overdue.
Great laundery list - the Hypocrite's Hit Parade. Thank you for your courage to express the emerging truth about this election. /

[GenericBlogger]

Meriam-Webster dictionary defines hypocrisy as a feigning (give a false appearance of or induce as a false impression) to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.

Some acts and statements fall into a gray area, They may not be hypocritical but they may be conflicts of interest or just won't sound right.

Many don't know how to properly spell the word "hypocrisy" and they won't labor themselves with its proper meaning. They won't listen to reports claiming that by the definition of the word, Edwards is not a hypocrite. If what they hear from Edwards and know of him make sense, chances are they will support him, otherwise they won't. A saying applies to every candidate including Edwards, "perception is reality". If Edwards is perceived to be a hypocrite, he will be seen as one. If a conflict of interest is perceived or something doesn't add up, hypocritical or not, he won't get the support of skeptics.

Many will ask if Edwards doesn't want hedge funds to make a lot of money why does he invest in them or work for them? If he is president and a bill comes to his desk, will he side with the people or the firms he invested in?

Absolving Edwards of hypocrisy does not mean his controversial statements and actions are still credible.

Many voters will by guided by their instinct, gut feeling, jingle in the pockets, balance in their checkbooks, food on the table, generally their well being and who they feel can make their life better.

The solution is with Edwards, to remember that perception is reality.

[OzoneTom]

> President George Bush portraying himself as a plain-spoken cowboy ...

...when he is terrified of horses. If he wasn't don't you think that we would have seen him riding them by now, a la Reagan?

[kgrdem]

Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the biggest fighter for the poor in recent memory was Robert Kennedy, a very, very rich man. Being rich isn't the problem, it's what you do with your life and your attitude towards your fellow man. What Republican can you point to that even TALKS about the poor...sincerely, not the phony 'compassionate conservative' oxymoron version of Republicanism. Who? They just don't give a rip. It's always been "I got mine, so shove off".

[jeanruss]

I am excited about the Edwards candidacy-he is going to make a great President-I feel privileged to be able to support him online and participate in this very important election-I am also happy to see that people are noticing how traditional media is constantly working to make him appear flawed-he is not perfect, no one is, but he is our best hope to get America back on track-he sincerely cares about the future of the country and has the energy and passion to work on the serious issues we face-it's going to feel great not to CRINGE every time my President opens his mouth, like I have the past 6 years.

[MissFortunate]

David, you are my new hero. You've put my frustrations about this whole thing down perfectly. I've book marked this seeing as though you nailed it, home run, you name it.

And this is why I support Edwards and why I take the time to defend him here on the Huffington Post. This is like a ray of sunshine to me on a very cloudy day. Each day I see the last two elections happening again, Democrats focussing on the wrong candidate because the media is TELLING them to.

He's a hypocrite! I hear this all over but the people who say it have very few details after that and they make these very tenuous connections between what Edwards says other should do and what he does. He does live in the real world and he also speaks his mind rather than taking a poll before doing so. That's refreshing as well.

The attention is supposed to help people decide but with all this opinion infused with the reporting they basically are telling them what they think and what they should want. Who won the debate? So and so said Hillary did. Oh, okay.

What are we doing? It's like the Foxing of the mainstream media, fair and balanced?

Thank you "Time" magazine, especially since their sales are down they chose the right path and took a risk with this story rather than continuing the same old rhetoric.

[Ani]

Thank you David ... and thank you Time for finally talking about our most viable and, for that matter, most electable candidate in the field. I've been an Edwards supporter for years, and will continue to be. It's nice to finally hear about something other than haircuts, houses and hedgefunds when it comes to Sen. Edwards. It's been sad to witness what should be the most serious discussion in America reduced to nothing more than salacious mistruths and tittilating headlines because our MSM has decided to "sell" us such nonsence.

Thanks, David for your informative and reasoned post today.

[DanOregon]

Can't believe it takes Time to set the record straight. But I guess if you are trying to fill a 24/7 cycle you figure you can cover three or four days talking about what a candidate drives, where he lives or what his hair looks like.
Yes, I am an Edwards supporter, but its not just Edwards who gets this treatment. Giuliani's Facebook page, Romney's hunting cred, etc. Reporters need to cover this race on its technical merits and leave the artistic impression scoring to the folks at home.