Since When Does The Mainstream Media Ever Worry About Being Sensitive Unless Democrats Are Involved?

03 May, 2007 by John Hawkins

Print this article Font size -16+

ABC says it’s treading lightly in dealing with the phone numbers it received in the DC Madam case,

Washingtonians eagerly — and, some nervously — await Friday night’s “20/20” special on ABC, when reporter Brian Ross and his investigative team present what they’ve unearthed about Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka the “D.C. Madam”) and her clients.

But the show is likely to disappoint viewers eager to see a roster of VIPs who patronized Palfrey’s escort service. Yeas & Nays hears that, as of this writing, the segment will reveal only two new names and is currently slotted for a mere seven minutes at the end of the hour long broadcast (you’ll recall that Palfrey turned over nearly 15,000 phone numbers to ABC News back in March).

…Part of the reason why the “20/20” segment may end up being so tame is that there were serious discussions within ABC News over the legal and ethical questions involved in identifying men on Palfrey’s client list. Questions such as: What makes a public figure a public figure (and worthy of mention on the broadcast)? Does merely having your phone number appear in Palfrey’s phone records prove that you used her service? What if you called Palfrey’s service only for a massage (as Tobias claims) or female companionship? How can the network prove that sex actually took place? And is ABC being used by Palfrey to do her dirty work?

If you want to see what the “legal and ethical” concerns of the MSM are when it comes to Republicans, look to how Dan Rather covered the phony Bush National Guard papers. So, the fact that they’re getting cautious about this must mean that there are some important Democrats on the list and if they go full tilt against the Republicans, they won’t be able to justify leaving the Democrats out.