I'd like to hear a defense of the Clinton's successfully spiking the GQ story.

In fact, if you don't like her please refrain from making this thread a bashing. I realy just want to hear some justification.

had to kill it, I want to hear it. Shame on GQ for bowing to pressure from the Clintons. I'm tired of their mafia-style tactics--I highly doubt GQ is part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

:rofl:

However, I am an Obama supporter, and I would like to see as much information on him as possible, even if it's unflattering--whether or not I choose to believe it, or give it any importance, is up to me. It's called being an informed voter.

him in the morning because he stinks, makes you a more "informed voter"???


Yeah right

Of course her campaign is going to try to squash unflattering stories.

Politics: It's an ugly business.

They have something to give - access and thier time. Of course they'll give it to friendlier outlets and try to use it to make coverage as favorable as possible.

the fact that holding The Sword of Damocles of Access over the press' head is exactly the tactic used and perfected by Karl Rove, lo these many years.

Not a heartening move at all.

It's foolish not to do it.

that we all decry as one of the causes of our ailments?

power and leverage over the media. The Hillary "carpet-bomb" of TV appearances over the weekend just proves that she will be treated like a queen--WHY is she given such deference? No wonder Obama and Edwards have no hope of being the nominee, unless she gets hit by a bus. It's sickening. I'm so fucking tired of two families controlling this country.

What I want to accomplish here is to call US out on OUR hypocricy. We bitch and moan about the media not doing its job when it comes to Republicans. If we accept our doing it we have no right to complain about this issue anymore.

the media that blocks our access to information that we as voters might want to know, to make an informed decision. This is a disservice to the public--if the story's untrue, the Clintons can certainly dispute it, and the American people can decide whether it's credible. Neither party should have this kind of power over the media--it certainly didn't help us in the run-up to the Iraq war, did it? I understand that if a DEMOCRAT does it, then the attitude here is that it's OK, but it's not--I don't trust ANYBODY of either party to that extent.

They did not want to put Bill on their cover for his political essence.

They wanted to use Bill to garner big bucks. Nothing else.

and you cant expect them to be. if they were, they would lose.

Sorry, that's not actually a defense.

and you had a way to stop it, wouldn't you do it, too?

I'm not saying it's moral. I'm saying it's understandable.

:)

magazine?

Hahaha Watch a Soap Opera. Probably more interesting :boring:

Bashers are transparent, petty and sad

This month's issue has interviews with Colin Powell, Dr. Dre, and Michael Jordan...John Kennedy is on the cover...Obama was on last month's cover...

But killing a negative story...More power to em...

So does Vogue.

And more inportantly, those stories are offered to a tremendously large audience.

Let's imagine the completely bizarre possibility that the Republican machi9ne gets a hold of what was in the GQ article. Let's say its bad, really bad, what happens then?

Hardly a new happening.

This whole thing is a yawner.

I just wish I had a moral guidebook that indicated when its a "yawner" and when its not.

I don't think if people learn that Harold Ickes and Mandy Grumwald have different strategies it will doom her campaign...

Oh, the current issue of GQ is great... It has interviews with Colin Powell, Michael Jordan and Dr. Dre...

why?

This is one of the huge problems of the dems. Still afraid of the boogeyman. :spank:

There is ***absolutely nothing** remarkable in a presidential (or even local dogcatcher) candidate trying to get an unfavorable story killed. The only difference here is the fame of the involved parties.

There really shouldn't be any story here at all ...... except the personality-obsessed media has made one.

As if Cone Nast's stable of publications is the news of record.

Does no one see how silly it is to worry that a magazine named 'Gentleman's Quarterly', that is published monthly, decided access was better than journalistic integrity?

Double yawn.

and the ones we don't like is...?

...... there's little I can say to help you.

And your inferring some sort of mental incapacity because my vision differs from yours is quite inane.

And for my sake, I'm glad I'm not your sweetie.

Like it or not, that was one of Deans biggest failures.

It was the corporatocracy deciding he would not be good for them. Period.

I was a huge Dean supporter in 2004, but even I could see he never countered his image issues.

Image, unfortunately, is everything in a campaign. Those that define their image, control it, and protect it survive.

The only reason I still vote for dems is because of Deans message,not style.
The fact that Clinton is worried more about her image speaks volumes to me.

Not arguing that image is more important than substance, just stating reality.

The Shrine of the Flickering Idol has probably done more damage to democracy then most people would ever imagine.

The Clintons made a request. GQ was under no obligation to kill the story. They did so because they thought they'd eventually sell more issues with a puff piece on Bill.

It's why we call them "whores."

What if she didn't have the story killed? What if it came out and, while not evidence of her reported pointy tail or horns, made her look bad? Would we be as outraged that she was a wimp and didn't fight a media cabal bent on her utter destruction?

Again ..... this is a non-issue.

for those of us who consider her to not be the best choice, but one that is still being shoved down our throats, it most certainly IS an issue. Your declaring otherwise does not settle the matter.

..... if that somehow is your implication for me seeing this as a non issue. I don't hate her, but there are others who I would prefer. Whatever, this has zip to do with my view of this incident.

I just can't get upset by her doing a good job of managing her campaign. Maybe because I'm not blinded by hatred for her??

that information? Suppose I'm an independent voter, and I want to hear the good, bad, and ugly of BOTH parties, but either one or both parties succeed in controlling the media. Is this desirable?

eom

Bill simply gave GQ a choice: you're not going to use my face to increase your circulation all the while trying to bash the campaign to increase your circulation.

GQ chose Bill.

Unflattering to a candidate, according to the candidate's supporters. Apparently, they have the last word on that discernment, or so they believe. Hence, if you say anything critical of said candidate, no matter how mild, you are "bashing".

It's a whiny, poopie-diaper tactic that has long been embraced by our friends on the right.

Of course, the rule does not apply if the situation is reversed.

Ain't the logic of political campaigns grand? ;-)

This biased nasty man is probably in competition with the mAnn C for bashing.

I couldn't care less what his biases are--I want INFORMATION. Facts are facts.

Truly.

anyway he can?

Josh Green could write a book on bashing Hillary.

to hear it. I want to know. I can't believe DUers support ANYONE controlling the media, to the point where we only hear flattering propaganda.

Maybe you could write to them about the issues.

I wouldn't cooperate with a magazine that was going to do an unflattering piece on my wife...

He would be a total dick if he did...

more concerned with selling copies and keeping their access to the powerful than with journalism, which is their right--they are a business. My concern is not GQ--it's CNN, NBC, the Washington Post, the NYT--the REAL bastions of mainstream news. How much influence do the Clintons, and anyone else, have over these organizations? What are we NOT going to hear, that we should be hearing?

That's a message that may have been best delivered to her campaign. Apparently she didn't think so.

silly, non-substantive, caricatures painted by "entertainment" media.

I've been crushed in the past over stuff like this, and believe me, it starts to turn your candidate into a cartoon. I could give you thousands of examples, but you probably know them all already.

NO Dem candidate benefits from this stuff.

If the piece does not get into policy, legal issues, vote history, etc - but focuses on "personality profiles", I fully support any Dem's ability to get it shitcanned.

We gotta stick together on stuff like this.

have the valuable knowledge that he is an unhinged, authoritarian nutjob, mostly through "personality profiles" that show how he operated in NYC. Let's say, for argument's sake, that a story reveals that Hillary is ALSO an authoritarian nutjob. I wouldn't vote for her either, then. If the story gets squashed, how does that serve me? I don't give a flying fuck that she's a Dem--personality and character flaws DO matter. Chimpy makes that all too clear.

too.

But in all the years of the Clintons under public scrutiny, do you really think GQ had anything new, relevant or earth-shattering to share with us?

I understand she is not your candidate, but I would caution you not to let that color your judgment on this kind of media strategy. Especially this early.

ALL of our candidates will eventually fall victim to being made into caricatures.
You won't like it when it comes around to your candidate, and you'll want him to fight back against unfair portraits that add nothing substantive to the debate.

And, in the end, being a voter who embraces the ideals of the Democratic party, you want a Democrat to lead this country. Having to un-cartoon whoever the nominee ends up being just makes that goal more difficult.

I wrote about this the other day, and I have some inside perspective at it; I've been a magazine editor, and I published my own newsstand magazine for a while. This is so common place in the magazine industry, but it shouldn't be a surprise if you look closely at the magazines you read.

Do you think it's coincidence that a big story about some product just happens to be placed on the page following an ad for that product? In the celebrity gossip rags, the killing of stories and threatening to withhold access is de riguer. It's the way they conduct biz; a publicist trying to promote Movie X will threaten to deny access to the other clients in his stable if GossipRag Weekly says something bad about Movie X's star.

This is a story being whipped up by the Hillary haters, and should not be given so much attention. It happens all the time. The fact that it's the Clinton's is the ONLY difference here.

.

Whether it will result in significantly lower voting in the polls or voting booths is hard to predict.