By the established standards of the news media and the rest of the Axis of Unethical Conduct, it should be, don’t you think? But apparently not.
Huh.
A throbbing example of wildly varying standards in the media depending on whether they are covering Donald Trump or Kamala Harris just raised its warty head. Did you see that Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris’s husband who was largely invisible until she pushed President Biden off the Democratic ticket, admitted he had an adulterous affair with his nanny and got her pregnant, leading to his divorce? That happened in August, after the slimy Daily Mail broke the scandal and Emhoff came clean to CNN. I missed it entirely, which means that, for example, the New York Times either ignored it or soft-peddled it because, well, you know. But the story burst on the social media scene this week after ex-Obama paid liar Jen Psaki, now a full-time Axis propagandist at MSNBC, interviewed Emhoff and gushed that he had “reshaped the perception of masculinity.” “Has that been an evolution for you and do you think that’s part of the role you might play as first gentleman?” Psaki continued. Yecchh. That was nauseating enough (no Vice-President’s spouse has the power, visibility or status to “reshape” anything), but Emhoff’s answer exploded heads from coast to coast.
“Ive always been like this,” he said. “To me, it’s the right thing to do…When we lift up women [and] support women [with] pay equity, child care, family leave …Women should not have less rights and be treated differently,” Emhoff continued. “It’s not the American way.”
A husband who has sexual relations with his family’s nanny, an employee, is engaging in textbook sexual harassment, in addition to betraying his wife. It appears that the woman may have had an abortion (“she didn’t keep the child”), which got Emhoff out of part of his self-engineered problem. If that was the resolution, I’m not surprised he’s an abortion booster. Emhoff’s first marriage ended in 2009, and he married Harris in 2014.
But wait! There’s more!
This week, Emhoff was accused of slapping a former girlfriend more than a decade ago. He allegedly struck the woman in the face while waiting in a valet line after an event during the Cannes Film Festival in France in May 2012. Three unnamed friends of the woman told, again, The Daily Mail about the incident.
Apparently she had been flirting with another man. The woman began dating Emhoff about three months before The Slapping occurred, after they had hooked-up on Match.com. The victim is a successful New York attorney, and there are videos of the event showing a woman in a red dress with Emhoff. The anonymous friends who confirmed the incident wanted their names withheld, the Daily Mail said, because they feared retaliation. Newsweek’s summary of the story appears well-sourced and sound.
This doesn’t sound like “reshaping the perception of masculinity” to me, but I’m just a stick-in-the-mud ethicist. It is also worth recalling that Senator Harris was one of the most vocal and persistent of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s critics for his alleged recovered-memory assault of a female classmate when he was a teenager.
Chris Cuomo, of all people, now rebranding himself as objective and independent after being an extreme Democratic hackster with CNN, mused that if these stories had been about Donald Trump, they would have been headlined for weeks.
See, even Chris Cuomo could figure that out.
Ethics Alarms 
Just to be clear: this post is about media coverage of him, not his bad deeds, right?
-Jut
Media coverage of his bad deeds? Is that any different? And why shouldn’t be about his bad deeds. Everything about Trump is about his bad deeds, actual or imagined, past, present or future. This guy’s being made into a role model, just as Harris is after sleeping her way to where she is. It goes well beyond media coverage, it’s the left’s incessant hypocrisy. More of Trump mishandled documents but Joe didn’t. And it goes beyond hypocrisy to being projection. The left invariable accused everyone else of doing exactly what the left is actually doing all the damned time.
A minor point, the woman’s “flirting with another man” was evidently her placing her hand on the shoulder of the valet whom she was trying to get to call her and her date a cab. Also, the “first gentleman” was evidently as drunk as a skunk. All of which, in and of itself, certainly qualifies as classic “toxic masculinity.”
Old Bill:
“Media coverage of his bad deeds? Is that any different? And why shouldn’t be about his bad deeds. Everything about Trump is about his bad deeds, actual or imagined, past, present or future. This guy’s being made into a role model, just as Harris is after sleeping her way to where she is.”
Yes, but HE is not running. Trump and Harris are; their flaws may be considered as disqualifying. He is dragged along like every other spouse of a politician; we are not voting for him. Yeah, he may be a bad person, but that is only a reflection on Harris.
The media’s coverage of him, on the other hand, is dishonest, if not outright hypocritical.
I am just trying to clarify that this is a post about media bias, not the fact that Harris married a jerk.
-Jut
I would go with that assessment, Jut. If Harris wants to be married to a philandering, girlfriend slapper, that’s her business. I don’t think it’s good optics for the Vice-President’s (or President’s) spouse to have such a history, but our Host is correct in that the Vice-President’s spouse is a non-entity when it comes to governing and the spouse of the President should only have slightly more visibility and no influence in governing at all (Florence Harding, Nellie Taft, Edith Wilson, Eleanor and Hillary, notwithstanding).
Gushing over Emhoff ushering in a new kind of masculinity when it is manifestly clear that he has a history of the same kind of toxic masculinity the Left decries in the Right is just another example of the double standards practiced by the Democrats and their allies in the news media (and in other professions, such as the entertainment industry, Big Tech, academia, et al). No question at all that they are sweeping under the rug actions they would trumpet for the next month up to and including election night if it were Trump or Vance.
My issue with the last 8 years isn’t that they take Trump to task when he deserves it, but that, in addition to making mountains out of molehills and other deceptive practices, they blow off or cover-up equally poor behavior on the part of their favored candidates.
I don’t care about what Emhoff did or has done. He’s not running for office. Maybe he’s reformed (slapping a woman in public is pretty far up on my unforgivable conduct list, though; maybe he’s a wonderful husband. But the nedia hacks holding him up as an exemplar while hiding his past is unethical, and, while Cuomo mentioned Trump, whose conduct is more relevant than Emhoff’s, he might as well have mentioned any Republican, including the spouses of Republican officials.
Yes, just clarifying because the title of the post appears to make it about him, but the content is primarily about the treatment by the media.
-Jut
Fair point. The headline was also supposed to raise the issue of whether this mattered, and why.
Frankly, I think Emhoff’s character is relevant. The Dems have put him out there as “the new man.” They are clearly pushing him as the “Not-Trump.” They’ve made his character part of their otherwise vapid campaign. They can’t rub a standard issue mega-firm asshole lawyer in my face and tell me he’s The New Man and have it mean nothing regarding the integrity of Harris and her campaign and the people running her campaign and who will be pulling her strings if they win the election. Next thing you know, Emhoff will be the “two for one” first person, a la Hillary Clinton. And I’m supposed to be outraged by Trump’s character but not about this new icon? His character DOES matter, at least to me. Because his character is about the only identifiable plank to their platform other than hope and joy and that tells anyone everything they need to know about Harris and her manipulators and the upcoming administration. They’re fantasists and will be with every bit of information the let out over the next four years. And they’ll censor anyone who contradicts their lies. Assholes.
textbook sexual harassment
Having sex with a subordinate at work isn’t sexual harassment.
DD
Oh, I’m pretty sure it is.
Having a consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate at work is not automatically considered sexual harassment but it def raises ethical and legal concerns that could lead to allegations of harassment.
It wouldnt be considered sexual harassment if certain conditions are met though
It’s definitely a risky situation due to the power imbalance.
DD
What conditions would those be? It’s forbidden in responsible employment manuals. If there is an imbalance of power, the harassment standard is met. There are no such “conditions.” Yeah, if the couple is already married or in a relationship before the superior-subordinate position is established, but that’s a different matter entirely.
It’s not “risky.” It’s harassment.
If we say that though, Jack, then people will have to face the reality of some of their most revered politicians, ie., Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy, Ted Kennedy,and others like them who preyed on women half their age. The whole Me Too movement was based on the philosophy that an age gap of more than 10 years, and a large difference in age automatically nullified the woman’s consent. Except when it doesn’t…certain people are special and excused.
I think it is, DD. Sexual harassment in the workplace relates to unwanted sexual initiation, among other things. Given the dynamic, there is a question of true consent.
Dang! I’m going to have to contact all the content creators of our sexual harassment training modules and let them know that having sex with a subordinate isn’t actually sexual harassment. Who’d have thought? I could have sworn they had a compelling case just from the standpoint that sex with a subordinate is coercive by nature, and that it creates a hostile work place because of the concerns of favoritism.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. I do. Among other things, I teach sexual harassment to corporations. It is absolutely sexual harassment: unequal power, impossibility of genuine consent. It is also abuse of power and position.
Please keep your assertions within the facts and law, not based on what you wish they were.
Why not? The hallmark of workplace sexual harassment is the unequal positions between the participants. A boss/employer/supervisor clearly has more power than an employee. Fear of retaliation, termination, or other negative consequences prevent the relationship from being truly consensual.
jvb
I think every sexual harassment training session I have been to in the last 30 years said so. I want my money (and time) back if that is the case! Next you are going to tell me that liquid water isn’t wet.
Denver Dave wrote…
As Denver Dave wrote a few days ago…
Denver Dave willfully wrote that sentence on an ethics blog of all places?
Seriously?
I can only surmise that Denver Dave is intentionally trolling the blogger and the commentariat at Ethics Alarms for some delusional reason, but what’s the end goal for such blindly ignorant trolling? What is Denver Dave trying to prove?
This puts Denver Dave’s previous hit & run comments in a completely different perspective.
I previously wrote to Denver Dave…
Clearly Denver Dave that isn’t up to the task of conversing intelligently.
Saying a boss having sexual relations with a subordinate isn’t sexual harassment is in the same category as saying “hate speech” isn’t protected by the First Amendment…or that the Earth isn’t spherical.
Incidentally, Newsweek and CNN, among others, were obligated to inform their audience that this affair was sexual harassment.
This isn’t covered because Emhoff is on the right team. Period, end of story.
Is that really in your talking point book? Hahahahahahaha! Good luck.
Ooops, that should have appeared below our paid DNC troll’s talking point above. Did Bill Clinton write that entry in the manual?
Well, there is a way to explain it with multiculturalism. Doug Emhoff is a Democrat. Democrats don’t think that this sort of thing is a problem. I mean Bill Clinton did it, Joe Biden did it, Eliot Spitzer, David Patterson, and Andrew Cuomo did it, etc. The Democrats really didn’t have a problem with it, they are the party of polyamory, etc. So, it isn’t a problem when they do it because it is part of their values. It is not part of Republican values, so it is a problem when Republicans do it. Because of this, Trump SHOULD get a pass because he was a Democrat when he was doing that stuff.
I like that the Newsweek article goes to great lengths to point out the political leanings of the Daily Mail and the Federalist, yet no such designation is given for CNN.
jvb
Leaning of the Daily Mail? They mean the Daily Mail reports facts, even the ones unfavorable to the left? That kind of leaning? Hilarious.
It’s a tabloid. Tabloids print scandals. Sometimes even facts. The National Enquirer broke the story about John Edward’s mistress and love child.
In a journalism culture where the “legitimate” organs hide stories to advance their agendas, the Daily Mail serves a valuble purpose. It doesn’t care about politics or agendas. It just wants juicy news to report.
Tabloid is correct. Too bad that’s the kind of place one has to go for basic reportage these days. It’s where I go first thing in the morning to see what’s happening rather than anywhere else to be told by my betters what to think or care about.
So…The Second Gentleman Running For First Gentleman Impregnated His Nanny During His First Marriage and Slapped a Date In the Face: Is That a Problem?
In my opinion, it only becomes a problem if the Second Gentlemen chooses to interject himself into the Presidential campaign of his wife. So in this case, the Second Gentleman has interjected himself into the campaign and therefore yes it’s now a problem. This shows the past morality bankrupt choices and actions of the Second Gentleman which are now fair game.
Choices have consequences.
Speaking of masculinity, some reports are that the veep debate gave Trump/Vance a bit of a boost with some female voters who saw it and noted the contrast between J.D. and Mr. Stay-Puft.
Actually, against all odds, I think it may be a tipping point.
You think this could put Trump over the top? Can you tell us more why you think that? Was it something in particular that was done or said, or just the contrast? I think this is important in light of the fact few people vote for the VP. I DO think Trump has a shot this time out, given that he has led in polls sometimes and not been consistently behind as he was in 2020, and also that right now it’s the Biden administration, not his administration, that is dealing with a less-than-wonderful record and in fact crises that are ramping up. However, it’s by no means a sure thing, given that abortion is going to be a tough hill to get over.
No, but I think it might be a catalyst, the straw that makes a lot of people think, “Wait a minute! How dare they try to foist this kind of phoniness on us? These people are assholes. I’m voting for the other party (or not voting at all).”