William Sullivan . . . "Do you notice the sleight-of-hand in the language and messaging here? On the one hand, “claims” of “sexual misconduct” were not the reason Moore lost suburbanites, and therefore the election. It was because Trump’s “hard-edged policies” were rebuked. On the other, “allegations” that Moore had “pursued teenage girls sexually or romantically” is what Roy Moore’s defenders are claiming was the real reason he lost. But that’s simply not true, the Times now insists.
"To prove just how disingenuous this is, let’s try a thought experiment. Had Roy Moore won the election, would the media narrative be about how Alabamans had the audacity to vote for a candidate who supports Trump’s “hard-edged” policies? Or would it be about how deeply-red, backward Alabamans had the questionable moral proclivities which allowed them to elect an accused child predator?
"You know the answer, and if the media were more honest than opportunistic, they would, too. The media narrative prior to the election was not an effort to suggest that Alabama voters were wrong to agree with Trump’s desire to cut taxes, curtail illegal immigration, or repeal and/or replace Obamacare. The loudest cries from the media ramparts were that Roy Moore winning the seat in Alabama would be a travesty because he was a suspected child predator.
"Yet interestingly, nowhere in the Times “takeaways” article is there a reference to the single, many decades-old, but extremely timely allegation of child molestation made by then-14-year-old Leigh Corfman. Nor was there a reference to the single (and similarly old and timely) allegation of sexual assault made by Beverly Young Nelson, whose credibility has been verifiably called into question with her conflicting claims about the yearbook that Moore allegedly signed and inscribed in 1977. " . . . Full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment