Herman Cain, the News Media’s New Sarah Palin

Calling Herman Cain an Oreo and an Uncle Tom is bad, but comparing him to Sanjaya? Is there no limit to media cruelty?

At least when the media and pundits decided to suspend basic principles of fairness and decency to attack Sarah Palin for the unforgivable crime of being an outspoken conservative woman (even before she had a chance to show she deserved to be attacked for other reasons), she had been nominated for Vice President. Business executive Herman Cain, a similarly reviled aberration from the expected norm as a black Republican, is now getting equally unconscionable journalistic treatment just for getting decent poll numbers.

I will move past the race-based attacks from columnists and the MSNBC hit squad that have explicitly referred to him as an Oreo, an Uncle Tom, a black man who “knows his place,”  “the GOP’s token,” and “the Sanjaya of the Republican field,” as well as the many demeaning references to him as a “joke candidate,” and go right to this weekend, when the Palin standard was on bright display.

Here is part of the interview of Cain on “Face the Nation,” after host Bob Scheiffer showed Cain’s bizarre web ad, which ends with his campaign manager taking a puff on a cigarette:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Cain, I have to ask you what is the point of that? Having a man smoke a cigarette in a television commercial for you?

CAIN: One of the themes within this campaign is let Herman be Herman. Mark Block is a smoker. We say let Mark be Mark. That’s all we’re trying to say because we believe let people be people. He doesn’t deny that he’s a smoker.

SCHIEFFER: Are you a smoker?

CAIN: No I’m not a smoker. But I don’t have a problem if that’s his choice. So let Herman be Herman, let Martin be Martin. Let people be people. This wasn’t intended to send any subliminal signal whatsoever.

SCHIEFFER: But it does. It sends a signal that it’s cool to smoke.

CAIN: No it does not. Mark Block smokes. That’s all that ad says. We weren’t trying to say it’s cool to smoke. We have a lot of people in this country that smoke, but what I respect about Mark as a smoker, who is my chief of staff, he never smokes around me or smokes around anyone else. He goes outside.

SCHIEFFER: But he smokes on television.

CAIN: Well, he smokes on television. But there was no other subliminal message.

SCHIEFFER: Was this meant to be funny?

CAIN: It was meant to be informative. If they listen to the message where he said America has never seen a candidate like Herman Cain. That was the main point of it. The bit on the end we didn’t know whether it would be funny to some people or whether they were going to ignore it or whatever the case may be.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just tell you, it’s not funny to me. I am a cancer survivor like you.

CAIN: I am also.

SCHIEFFER: I had cancer that was smoking related. I don’t think it serves the country well, and this is an editorial opinion here, to be showing someone smoking a cigarette. You’re the frontrunner now and it seems to me as frontrunner you would have a responsibility not to take that kind of a tone in this campaign. I would suggest that perhaps as the frontrunner, you’d want to raise the level of the campaign.

CAIN: We will do that, Bob. I do respect your objection to the ad. Probably about 30 percent of the feedback was very similar to yours. It was not intended to offend anyone. Being a cancer survivor myself, I am sensitive to that sort of thing.

SCHIEFFER: Would you take the ad down?

CAIN: Well, it’s on the Internet. We didn’t run it on TV.

SCHIEFFER: Why don’t you take it off the Internet.

CAIN: It’s impossible to do now. Once you put it on the Internet it goes viral. We could take it off of our Web site but there are other sites that have already picked it up. It’s nearly impossible to erase that ad from the Internet.

SCHIEFFER: Have you ever thought of just saying to young people, don’t smoke. 400,000 people in America die every year from smoking related-

CAIN: I will have no problem saying that. In fact-

SCHIEFFER: Well, say it right now.

CAIN: Young people of America, all people, do not smoke. It is hazardous and it’s dangerous to your health. Don’t smoke. I’ve never smoked and I have encouraged people not to smoke.

SCHIEFFER: It’s not a cool thing to do.

CAIN: It is not a cool thing to do. That’s not what I was trying to say. Smoking is is not a cool thing to do.

SCHIEFFER: All right. You talked some about the missteps you have made in the campaign….

Schieffer has never, in my memory, taken it upon himself to lecture a political candidate about the quality of his or her campaign ads, demand—because an ad offends him personally!—that an ad be removed, or bully a candidate into endorsing Shieffer’s anti-smoking views. Because Cain was understandably taken aback, he did not respond as confrontationally as he should have, which would have been to say, “I’m sorry, Bob, but I’m not here to get approval of my ads from you. The campaign isn’t about you, it isn’t about your cancer, and your job isn’t to impose your sensibilities on me or tell me what ads I should run. I’ll answer your questions forthrightly, but I was under the impression that this was a news show, not a political correctness inquisition or an anti-smoking forum.”

It is not Schieffer’s role as a TV news show host to use it as a platform for his anti-smoking zealotry. Herman Cain’s campaign ads are not aimed at children, nor are they designed to make smoking look “cool”—frankly, I don’t know what the heck that ad is designed to do. But Schieffer would not, or at least has not, treated any previous candidate so disrespectfully as to discard the appropriate boundaries of his role to deliver a personal condemnation and begin dictating ad content. I don’t care, frankly, what Bob Schieffer finds funny or offensive, and it’s not his job as a newscaster to make the news about him.

That incident, however, was a relatively minor offense compared to this late-breaking cheap shot on Cain in The Politico:

“During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.”

“The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.”

This is almost the perfect snake strike. It is full of portent and innuendo, and impossible to check or properly assess. An accusation or two of sexual harassment involving a business executive like Cain could be completely meaningless. Ten accusations would raise serious questions. More detailed (but not much more) reports have said the complaints were based on “comments and body language” that made the women feel “uncomfortable.”  I do workplace trainings in sexual harassment, and I often thank my lucky stars that none of the mostly female staffs that I have led in the past included anyone seeking a quick pay-off by intentionally misconstruing one of my off-hand comments.

Does this mean Cain didn’t behave inappropriately at some point? No. The point is that the fact that there were complaints and that the complainers were paid a settlement doesn’t mean he did, either. And because the women agreed not to speak about the incident (at risk of forfeiting their money), there is no way to confirm anything or for Cain to defend himself. Ethics verdict: Unfair.

That means the story shouldn’t have been reported at all until or unless there was something substantive to report.  But when you are a conservative, black Republican surging in the polls, or a conservative white woman running for national office, the news media is unwilling to wait for substantive. Smears, innuendo and rumors are enough.

9 thoughts on “Herman Cain, the News Media’s New Sarah Palin

  1. A lot of us expected to see the Clarence Thomas Inquisition dust off its branding irons and go to work on Herman Cain in a similar manner. Few things frighten them more than the prospect of a woman or black person who doesn’t toe the “party line” to the letter. They’re perfectly aware that, should such a “hole in the dike” not be stopped up immediately and ruthlessly, the leak will stand to become a flood. And without a committed block vote from black Americans, the entire Leftist Movement faces catastrophic collapse.

  2. I agree. Mr. Schieffer could have just asked Mr. Cain what his position is on
    smoking because of what was shown in the ad and left it at that. It is our decision after that.

  3. Pingback: Herman Cain, the News Media's New Sarah Palin | Ethics Alarms | www.ardelahlam.com

  4. I couldn’t agree more, Jack. It’s despicable the way conservative blacks and women are treated viciously, and with a total lack of respect by those who preen and pride themselves on their superior capacity for tolerance. Tighten your seat belt. It’ll get worse.

    • I couldn’t agree more, Jack. It’s despicable the way conservative blacks and women are treated viciously, and with a total lack of respect by those who preen and pride themselves on their superior capacity for tolerance. Tighten your seat belt. It’ll get worse.

      Is there no public figure willing to call out the media on this, to ask, “Have you no sense of decency?”

      This is not then first time the media went all out to manipulate public opinion to achieve a desired result. Over a century ago, it was Remember the Maine.

  5. But when you are a conservative, black Republican surging in the polls, or a conservative white woman running for national office, the news media is unwilling to wait for substantive. Smears, innuendo and rumors are enough.

    There doesn’t seem to be any case for a left-wing bias against conservatives here, Jack.

    1) The story was broken by Politico, a site run by someone who served in the Reagan administration, was Reagan’s assistant after his presidency, and still runs the Reagan library. I’m not saying Politico’s a right-wing site, but they’re certainly not a left-wing site; their main bias is that they’ll do anything for an increased readership.

    So you can’t reasonably say that the story being broken is an example of anti-conservative bias.

    2) Once Politico broke the story, all the other news outlets — including indisputably non-left outlets like FOX — had to cover it, and did. Again, no anti-conservative bias there, unless you think FOX has an anti-conservative bias.

    3) There are plenty of unsubstantiated smears that get pushed by the media about Democrats, too, Jack — even white male Dems. For instance, the media covered the hell out of the swiftboating of John Kerry. The Juanita Broderick rape allegations against Bill Clinton — which can never be proven for sure, just like these accusations against Cain — were covered in the mainstream media. All sorts of untrue allegations about Gore were not just covered but pushed hard by the mainstream media.

    When it comes to elections, the media generally chases whatever narratives they think makes media people look smart and canny and will deliver good ratings. You’d have to be incredibly biased to think that only politicians of your own party ever get lied about or treated unfairly. But if it happens to politicians of both parties — and it indisputably does — then how can it be anti-Conservative bias?

    * * *

    One more point, not in response to your post, just idle speculation: If this story was planted by Democrats, or reported on by journalists wanting to help the Democrats, wouldn’t they have held on to it until after Cain won the nomination? Releasing it now doesn’t help Democrats at all. If anything, it helps Republicans (who benefit by airing out all the skeletons early in the primary race, rather than having them come out in the general election).

    IF this story came out with help by people with a political agenda — and that’s a big “if” — then logically, it would be someone trying to help either Romney or Perry. They’re the ones that benefit from Cain having problems at this point.

    • 1. Politico is a left-leaning site, and if you monitor it, you will agree. The vast majority of their contributors are left-leaning. I like the site, but that story was terrible journalism.
      2.Of course everybody covered it once it was out, though the past year or so suggests that if it was a conservatibe site’s hit on a democrat, it would have been buried as a “conservative media story,” like the Washington Post sat on the Rev. Wright-Obama connection.
      3. That’s an “everybody does it” argument, Barry. And in this type of case, it isn’t even true. The media sat on a woman’s credible accusations that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her for years—this is Juanita Broderick—with far, far more information at their disposal than in the Cain story. Those same media are describing the Cain matter as “devastating” and “a scandal”..when there is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing of any kind—and a sexual harassment allegation is not such evidence in the absence of details. And let you aregue that when Clinton was given a pass, “things were different”—the Clarence Thomas smear pre-dated Clinton, and the media lined up to believe Anita Hill in a pure he said-she said scenario. I once asked a trail lawyer, later a Democratic candidate for governor in her state, why she wore an “I Believe Anita Hill “button during the Thomas hearings but was calling Juanita Broderick a “liar.” She said, to her credit, “Because I like Bill Clinton’s policies, and I don’t like Clarence Thomas.” Exactly.

  6. 1) Politico carries stories that both sides object to, and you can find lots of lefties complaining that it has a right-wing bias. There’s no objective way of measuring it, but a site that has both sides complaining about bias has a reasonable claim to being middle-of-the-road.

    2) The Rev Wright story was heavily covered by virtually all mainstream media — far, far more covered during the Democratic primary than Cain’s troubles have been. And the Washington Post was covering it in March of 2008 — the same month that right-wing sites like National Review began seriously covering it (although NR did mention Wright in passing in late February).

    3) I don’t get it. Why are you saying that Broaddrick is “credible,” but Anita Hill’s accusations are dismissed as “he said-she said”? Both cases were “he said-she said” cases. I think that both women are credible, but what reason — other than pure partisan bias — do you have for treating these two women’s stories differently?

    Anita Hill’s accusations were part of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing; you can’t possibly be claiming that it was biased of the media to cover her accusations, under those circumstances. So why is that even relevant to our discussion?

    In Broaddrick’s case, we have what’s basically a he said/she said case, complicated by the fact that Broaddrick had signed an affidavit swearing that Clinton had never touched her. In Cain’s case, we have a CEO who settled harassment claims with two women — and whose story changed overnight. How is the Broaddrick accusation news, but the fact that Cain’s company paid a woman a full year’s salary to settle a harassment claim not news?

    We don’t know whether or not Cain harassed those women. But we do know that a settlement was made — that’s not speculation, it’s a fact. If there were such information available about Obama, you’d demand that it be reported, and rightly so.

    (For the record, lest you accuse me of having partisan bias in which women I believe or don’t believe, here’s what I said about Broaddrick in 2003: “I think [Broaddrick] tells a credible and realistic story. I don’t know if she’s telling the truth – but in my heart, I suspect she is.”)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.