Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George Coyne who wrote (10321)	3/11/1998 10:42:00 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 20981

"what was the point of the news conference?" The point, as I understood it, was to clear his own conscience, to make a point about press coverage of allegations like this one that aren't sufficiently corroborated (his own mea culpa for not being sufficiently skeptical originally, and doing enough due diligence), and to say (once again, as if anyone with a brain and a decent education didn't all know this already) that there is a lot of press coverage out there that is politically motivated, but is masked as "journalism". You can, as some obviously will and have, that somehow this is a "career" move for him, that he is cynically "switching" sides to make money or get ahead journalistically, but this doesn't ring right to me. If he actually believes that the original story was substantially true, he now stands to lose a lot more than he stands to gain. If Clinton is thrown out, or even gets a massive black eye from a credible Congressional censure, he will be persona non grata in every camp. He may still be that, but his only chance, I think, for a serious future in journalism is if the story isn't true. Then at least he gets credit for his mea culpa.

To: George Coyne who wrote (10321)	3/11/1998 10:50:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>>You're absolutely right, so what was the point of the article? It is a non-denial denial masquerading as an apology. The Clintonistas are famous for it. "I did not have a 12 year affair with Gennifer Flowers". No, it was 11 years, 11 months. The trooper story was incredible. Was it false? No. I'm sure that most (vulgus) now actually believe that Brock has said that his original story was untrue. The WH certainly wanted to convey that wrong-headed impression when they stated: The White House welcomed Brock's apology as "an interesting correction of the record." That would be an even more interesting non-correction correction. A new term for me. Ah, while the expansion of their perfidy knows no bounds, the mainstream press applauds his conversion and the cynical motivation behind it: "Brock's political transformation may also help his career. Once dismissed as a fringe writer with a right-wing agenda, he is working hard to win newfound respectability as a mainstream journalist." allpolitics.com