Public Eye
July 10, 2007 11:15 AM

Atwitter Over Vitter

(AP (file))
If you want to understand one of the key differences between the mainstream media and blogs – and make sense of why the latter have grown increasingly popular in recent years – look no further than the David Vitter story.

Vitter, of course, is the Louisiana Republican Senator whose phone number appeared in the records of "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Like Newt Gingrich and other conservative politicians before him, he offered up an apology chock-full of religious language.

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," he said in a statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

What's the reason this story has hit such a nerve with some folks? (It's dominating sites like Memorandum.) Vitter is what The New Republic calls a "family-values conservative" – the kind of guy who gets votes by talking about "stand[ing] up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values." TNR notes that Vitter said last year that the gay marriage ban was the most important issue out there, and also flags the New Orleans Times-Picayune's follow up reporting, in which Vitter "conceded that infidelity, divorce, and deadbeat dads contribute to the breakdown of traditional families."

In other words: It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

The blogs are having a field day with that hypocrisy. "This is what makes the revelations interesting," writes the Carpetbagger Report. "Vitter shamelessly got on his high horse, condemning those he deemed morally inferior, despite engaging in the same 'anti-family' behavior he claimed to abhor."

The mainstream media, however, has largely steered clear of focusing on Vitter's past statements, opting instead to play the story relatively straight. The Washington Post, noting only about his rhetoric that Vitter is "reliable conservative vote in the Senate," didn't front the story, opting instead for A3. Rather, it's the blogs and liberal sites like Salon that are jumping on the story and and hammering Vitter for statements at odds with his behavior.

If you want a straight news story, then, you can stick with the traditional media. But if you want a spotlight placed on Vitter's hypocrisy – and the rush of satisfaction that comes with experiencing schadenfreude that you can justify – you can head over to the blogs. Is it any wonder that the latter get so many clicks?
Tags:
david vitter
Topics:
In The News
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 20 Comments
by phoenixandy July 12, 2007 7:20 PM EDT
I find it hypocritical that the MSM made Clinton and Monica Lewinsky the top story during that whole impeachment *** and made a big fuss over John Edwards' $200 haircut, yet, both the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News made no mention of this story. It was reported on ABC's World News Tonight, but no mention of Sen. Vitter's past statements preaching morality.

One_American, you're a hypocrite and an idiot.
Reply to this comment
by one_american July 12, 2007 5:21 PM EDT
vasiy:

You liberals need to stop trying to shove your IMMORALITY down America's throat.
Reply to this comment
by mcnhome July 11, 2007 6:41 PM EDT
I agree that bedroom activities should be kept private. However, when you are a public figure especially one who goes around preaching about the morals of others, you've got to expect this kind of blow back.

Oh and as far as MSM reporting straight news here's what I think. Real MSM news died the day corporate America decided that news should turn a profit. The corpse has been degrading ever since. If you call parroting the party line for any political party news, no wonder people are looking for alternatives.
Reply to this comment
by July 11, 2007 6:08 PM EDT
"And this issue points out what I like best about the blogs... blogs get problems out in the open, not swept under the rug because if you **** off the guy in charge, your paper doesn't get a seat at the table."

Well said.
Reply to this comment
by mattcat25 July 11, 2007 12:25 PM EDT
Well, I truly believe that what people do sexually is their own private business between them and their willing partner. But, in this particular case of a Republican venturing out of the sanctity of his marriage to covert with a professional call girl (I assume) isn%u2019t nearly as appalling as the House of Representative Republicans knowingly allowing and swathing the activity of fellow members sexually harassing underage male pages.
Reply to this comment
by memekiller July 11, 2007 1:41 AM EDT
The difference is that the MSM spends inordinate amounts of time justifying why Edward's haircut is a character issue, and rejoicing in how his personal fortunes makes him a hypocrite for pushing policy that benefits the other 99% of Americans. His wife can't even die in a way that doesn't bring their character into question, and you get on your high horse about giving us straight news?

If your campaign is entirely premised on your superior morality, how on Earth is buying prostitutes not a legitimate issue? Because Paris Hilton isn't involved?

This illustrates the difference between blogs and the MSM quite well, indeed.
Reply to this comment
by vasiy-2009 July 10, 2007 9:32 PM EDT
Oh, please, One_American...if you think that hanky-panky hasn't gone on in the Oval Office before Clinton, then you're either deluded or just plain stupid. *** and politics have gone hand in hand practically since the beginning of the human race. Lying to get us into a war that has turned into chaos is a much more serious offense than receiving a ***, in my opinion (and no, I'm not a Democrat, but I am an Independent). Not only that, but what Vitter did was illegal, because, you know, prostitution is against the law in most parts of the country, although I don't really agree with that either. I don't really care about what Vitter did with a prostitute; that's his own business and nobody else's. What I do care about is the fact that he's a hypocrite because he spouts off about how sacred marriage is (while seeking *** from prostitutes) and tries to shove his "morals" down our throats. Honestly, you Republicans need to get off your moral high horses and mind your own freaking business.
Reply to this comment
by one_american July 10, 2007 9:02 PM EDT
"Fooling around with business girls is not a victimless transaction between two innocent souls seeking a karmic connection. It's a crime, even in Louisiana."
Posted by ridingwoman at 04:27 PM : Jul 10, 2007

Much lesser of a crime than the crime turning the Oval Office into the "Oral Office", and then lying about it - as Bill Clinton so expertly did.

Ex-spurt. I crack me up.
Reply to this comment
by ridingwoman July 10, 2007 7:27 PM EDT
I would like to point out that Clinton's sins were MORE than amply examined to the tune of some 20 million dollars just to " give the man tha bird" to quote Rodney Crowell. As usual, *** is only an outrage when it's not you or not a Republican! What about the newest darling of the Righteous Right, Rudy Guiliani? He is currently married to his THIRD wife, whom he entertained at parties and fundraisers in the mayoral mansion while his wife and children were consigned to the upstairs for the party. It took a court order to keep the woman out of her home before the husband of the year quit waving her around in front of the cameras ad infinitum.
Fooling around with business girls is not a victimless transaction between two innocent souls seeking a karmic connection. It's a crime, even in Louisiana.
Reply to this comment
by vasiy-2009 July 10, 2007 7:25 PM EDT
Yes, One_American, democrats like Bill Clinton and JFK were notorious for their extramarital affairs. However, unlike Republicans, Democrats aren't moral hypocrites who try to shove their "morality" and religion down other people's throats. I really don't care what people do in their own bedrooms and I wish that the Republicans would learn to mind their own business.
Reply to this comment
by one_american July 10, 2007 7:11 PM EDT
"In other words: It's the hypocrisy, stupid."

Yes. Like the hipocrisy if Democrats to talk about Vitter, and completely ignore the pink elephant in the room - namely ex-prez Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lowinski" Clinton.

The difference between Vitter and Clinton is that Vitter took responsibility for his actions; Clinton, of course, like a true liberal, did not.

Hipocrisy is thriving at CBS.
Reply to this comment
by ramanujan1 July 10, 2007 6:50 PM EDT
Honestly, who is surprised that a rightwing, conservative Replublican lied? Isn't that a job requirement?
Reply to this comment
by bo234 July 10, 2007 6:19 PM EDT
I really don't understand this post. Why shouldn't the mainstream media bring up Senator Vitter's past statements since they are completely relevant to his actions? How is this an example of "playing the story straight?" It's more accurately described as an example ignoring important information. Isn't it the media's job to put current events in context, or is it their job to simply ignore anything that was said or done more than a week ago?

To go off on a little tangent, this is the same problem with the media's Iraq reporting. Some politician says that in 6 months, conditions in Iraq will improve. After 6 months roll around and Iraq is worse, the same politician again says that we have to wait 6 months. The media dutifully report his comments, but never mention the previous comments, leaving that job to the blogs. That shouldn't be the blogs' job, it should be the mainstream media.
Reply to this comment
by outrider4 July 10, 2007 6:12 PM EDT
In Hoover's days I worked briefly as a Special Agent in the FBI. Although my duties did not directly entail searching for indiscretions committed by people holding public office, I reported them when discovered without any feelings of guilt. The rationale was that the indiscretions made the perpetrator more susceptible to the will of those who would corrupt our government by threatening to reveal the prohibited acts if the wrongdoer did not do as he/she was ordered. Does the MSM print only the straight news in hopes of some pay off like having an informant of known reliability?
Reply to this comment
by July 10, 2007 5:01 PM EDT
The hypocrisy is the big news here. I do not care about the prostitution, a victimless business transaction. Mainstream media is NOT reporting the story. It is missing what is important to many Americans and people world-wide by only reporting half of this story. Some guy visited a prostitute, the guy was a US Senator. I don't care. What I CARE about is the hypocrisy.
Reply to this comment
by famulla-2009 July 10, 2007 4:38 PM EDT
Mr. Bush. Please leave Iraq. You see the problem is not yours. It is the Katrina that left many displaced and they need settlements. It is the mismanaged by the old helicopters etc. l was that you are too stiff with. Relax a little. The wire fences killed 70 cows of one Mexican. He went to Fidel Castro to claim and Fidel Laughed. Sad he,%u201D You mean I pay for the cows and goats that the CIA killed to remove the COW FEVER poison to give me" No way. I think you better take a small boat and go alone n the night sneak in and carry on fishing till you get married to the pretty actress. Then take the green card and become citizen. When Mr. Bush s replaced by the new president and that is evident like Tony Blare you call for justice.
This is the only way I Fidel Castro can give you the best tonic. Even Chavez likes this sort of tonic. I have sent some to Chinese delegation who are n Sudan and Somalia breeding the terrorists. They stay they will keep Bush and UK on their toes and feet for next 15 years.
Mr. Bush is nice if you approach him like Scooter Libby. First make friendship with him. He usually has his dinner in one Pakistani Restaurant on Sunday morning. Tell him you need your cows. But be very tactful. Dress up as the waiter.
Reply to this comment
by hhkeller July 10, 2007 4:15 PM EDT
It must be a crime to solicit *** for money in Lousiana, DC or Virgina. Why is Vitter free to prey on other women or men. When will he be indicted or repremanded by his peers. Did the FBI cover up his crime and is the DOJ treating this John with a different set of laws. Creepy Senator, creepy DOJ.
Reply to this comment
by cokefloat1 July 10, 2007 3:51 PM EDT
And this issue points out what I like best about the blogs... blogs get problems out in the open, not swept under the rug because if you **** off the guy in charge, your paper doesn't get a seat at the table.

I love my newspapers; love them very much. At the same time, I also love some of the blogs and appreciate them a lot. Keep it up, guys -- let's clean house!
Reply to this comment
by cktirumalai July 10, 2007 3:10 PM EDT
It used to be said in the decades when J.Edgar Hoover was the powerful Director of the FBI that he knew all about the private transgressions of Congressmen and Senators. Errant politicians have been around in DC for a long time, though they have not always gone in for hypocritical preaching.
On a different note, once the contradiction between what men and women say and do truly disappears, we will have begun a new chapter in human history.
Reply to this comment
by josey2006 July 10, 2007 2:56 PM EDT
"Schadenfreude?" Who cares our "his" misfortune? He's a public servant who's made his bones selling hyprocrisy. I'm more concerned with the American People's misfortune of having him as a Senator.
Reply to this comment
See all 20 Comments

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye