The way I can tell is that the election-related interview requests have started coming in at a brisk clip.
Last week there were three. I meant to tell you about them because one of them was New Watch on WIS, which aired Sunday morning. So unless you’re some kind of heathen who sits around watching TV on Sunday morning (and I say that without meaning any aspersions upon the heathen community), you missed it, because I forgot to tell you about it.
Ex-Mayor Bob Coble saw it, and sent me a note to say “Good job on Newswatch,” which I appreciate. Not to say Mayor Bob is a heathen. He’s just way into politics; he can’t help it.
I taped that Thursday afternoon. Then I also taped a segment over at ETV on Friday, also about the election. That won’t air until sometime in October. (It was broader, big-picture stuff, not as pegged to the news of the day.) I’ll get the date and try to remember to let you know.
Back on Thursday, I got an e-mail from Chris Haire with Charleston City Paper, to the following effect:
Just wanted to see if you have time to talk. I’m working on a story on the ongoing Nikki Haley rumors. Here’s the angle: With no proof out there, the only way to truly address this is as a smear. And, what’s particularly odd here, is that it’s such an ongoing smear — and truth be told, arguably the most ineffective smear in history. The question here is why it’s still happening.
I found that cryptic. I assumed it was a reference to this. But it wasn’t. It was a reference to something else, something I hadn’t heard about (and wish I still hadn’t), specifically this. (Which led later to this.)
I talked with him, and tried to say something coherent, but what are you supposed to say? Frankly, I’m just like most folks in South Carolina — uncomfortable as hell talking about this stuff. Which is why I sort of doubt it will emerge as visibly as it did back during the primary. At least, I hope it doesn’t.
Anyway, I asked Chris to let me know when that is published. If and when I see it, I’ll give y’all a link. If I forget to look, and y’all see if first, remind me. I want to keep y’all in the loop. I just forget sometimes.
It’s a real shame, but I think this stuff matters IF IT IS TRUE.
If it’s not true, there is no punishment severe enough for an allegator who knows they are lying.
Some cultures have some very inventive (and painful) punishments for anyone who would besmirch a lady’s character falsely.
But, I think anyone who says a candidate’s infidelity doesn’t matter to them is being disingenuous. it’s the biggest secular promise we make in our life. If you’ll break that promise, what lesser promise will you break?
Isn’t there some way to enforce fact checking before publishing this type of “information?”
Finally, some comments on this (instead of continuing to argue about the efficacy of war)…
Karen, my wife said I shouldn’t have included those links.
But here we find ourselves in the quintessential conundrum of journalism in a post-MSM era.
I’m commenting on an election that is taking place in a world in which things such as these are being published on the Web. What IS the proper way to react to that? Perhaps it’s to pretend that it’s not out there, and maybe in the end I should come back to that position. It’s what I do MOST of the time. I had completely ignored, for instance, the most recent allegation by Will Folks.
But now I’m being called by a representative of another medium and asked to comment, and while I doubt I said anything coherent, I said something, and it’s likely to be published, and I’m letting y’all know about it the way I usually do (but forgot to do with Newswatch), so… do I tell y’all about the interview, but not tell you what it was ABOUT?
Used to be, this kind of stuff didn’t see the light of day, and I tend to believe that we were all better off.
Now, with much of the news content being determined by media that have no such restraint, no one knows what the rules are. I know I’m confused.
Perhaps I should fall back on a sort of Mr. Darcy formula, based in the idea that gentlemen do not speak of such things, and just accept that everyone will think me a proud jerk for being aloof from what everyone is talking about…
Actually, that’s sort of appealing. When asked to take part, I can simply say, “I seldom dance…”
Speaking of parallel universes—Haley’s followers do indeed care about her peccadilloes, were any adequately proved. They obvi do not care about any of the issues those of us who do not care about her sex life care about, like her apparent professional incompetence (tax matters) and hypocrisy (transparency).
So are we going to be pragmatic, and torpedo her by the only means that seem to matter to her voters, or are we pure and above the fray and condemned to at least four more years of Sanfordism?
Problem is some of this sordid stuff might be true. The State ignored the Sanford e-mail trail for months. Tough call but I say print the allegations (unless they are clearly ridiculous) and let the voters sort it out.
I agree with bud. The Sanford e mails should have been reported/investigated.
Of course Ms. Haley’s character is relevent. I tend to think at least some of the allegations are true, especially after she was caught telling a few lies trying to dodge the Folks story.
Chris Haire now notifies me that the Charleston City Paper piece is up now. You can find it here.
What he quoted from me is nothing new to readers of this blog. It’s pretty much stuff I’ve said before…