In 1991, in the highest of dudgeon, Democrats told us how serious an allegation sexual harassment was, that if a woman (even if unable to corroborate her claim) said a man hinted at finding pubic hairs on a can of soda or just happened to mention a pornographic movie with a title derived from the name of a fictional pirate, then said man was not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
A few years later, members of that very party informed Republicans they were prudes for obsessing about the then-Democratic president’s “bimbo eruptions” (an expression coined by a top aide to said Democrat). His extramarital dalliances were immaterial to his ability to serve. Few in our media paid much heed to a corroborated story alleging that while Attorney General of Arkansas, said Democrat raped a woman — or made untoward advances on another woman in a private study in the White House.
For the past four days, we have been treated to wall-to-wall media coverage about unspecified allegations against a Republican candidate for president, as if this were an issue more important than the president’s ties to lobbyists, a Wall Street tycoon under investigation raising piles of cash for said president, his administration’s possible cover-up of a government program to sell guns to Mexican drug lords, shenanigans in granting government loan guarantees to favored green energy firms, and the sour economy.
Well, we finally have some specifics of the encounter, with a source “telling PJ Media that she witnessed the woman [alleging harassment] and Herman Cain break away from the large group [of co-workers] as part of a smaller group.”
Now, these allegations may indeed be serious, but can you imagine such wall-to-wall media coverage if a conservative news source had published an account alleging a Democrat had sexually harassed employees without specifying the allegations? On Wednesday, neoneocon wrote
Just take a look at the amount of coverage on memeorandum today, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. All those articles for something that shouldn’t have seen print until (a) the sources were identified; (b) the allegations were specified, including whether there were witnesses to the alleged acts; and (c) the details of what a settlement might mean in terms of a person’s actual guilt or innocence were fully explained.
Now, a few details of the story are dribbling out. Perhaps, there is indeed a story here. Only now with these details coming out does it appear to merit publication. It should not have driven news coverage for the past four days. [Read more…]