Thursday, January 17, 2008

Lewinskygate 10 Years On.

Guido Fawkes has a post up about the Clinton/Lewinsky affair that became public 10 years ago today. As he points out up until then the media could still choose to cover up the scandals and misdemeanors of their favoured politicians, but when Matt Drudge broke the Lewinsky story after Newsweek had chosen to sit on the story the dynamic between the press and the public changed forever, the blogosphere is in a sense the offspring of Matt Drudge. As Dan Rather found out 4 years ago the professional media is no longer the unchallenged guardian of what the public knows.

Mark Steyn republishes an article he wrote at the time for the Wall Street Journal about the American media's role in the Clinton cover up.
On Sunday, National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" opened by wondering if we shouldn't be "putting the brakes on a rush to judgment." A rush to judgment? The American media have been enjoying a six-year crawl to judgment, and there's really no need to put the brakes on when you've only just gotten into first gear. The current "feeding frenzy" is no more than a first, belated step toward an all-you-can-eat salad bar that has been blinking invitingly at them for half a decade.

In fairness the British print press was never as craven and pompous as their US counterparts, in large part because of the competitive nature of the British market.


dearieme said...

The US press certainly covered up for Clinton and, on an even more preposterous scale, for JFK. Have they ever done it on such a scale for a Republican?

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

Yum. Tasty!

Ross said...

Dearieme, I doubt that they would cover up for a Republican. Remember only a few years before the Clinton affair the media tried to do a hatchet job on Clarence Thomas on the basis of far less evidence than there was against Bubba Clinton.

James, only Monica and a few hundred women from Arkansas can confirm if that is the case.