Neil Godbout's editorial (Nov. 14, "When tribe trumps truth") mentioning the scandal involving U.S. senator from Alabama, Roy Moore, leaves some unanswered (and unasked) questions. My impression is that the accusations are true, but my concern is the behavior of the media in reporting this story.
Mr. Godbout says the Washington Post spent a month in Alabama trying to find women with stories about Roy Moore. But then the question is, did they also spend an equivalent amount of time trying to find women with stories about Moore's opponent in the primary? And did they exercise the same diligence in trying to dig up dirt on Moore's Democrat opponent in the current election?
I think it's safe to assume they did not.
And while they're quick to believe the women, one wonders why the media was so reluctant to believe the women who accused Bill Clinton? (By the way, the New York Times now says it believes Juanita Broaddrick told the truth when she accused Clinton of raping her. It seems the Clintons have become a liability to the Democrats and they want to hustle Hillary off the political stage before 2020.)
Who gave the reporters the story? The women didn't come to them, so how did they get it? Have the stories been public knowledge in that part of the country, easy to find for anyone who asked? My understanding is that the women involved had kept quiet about it for four decades, so how did those journalists even know where to look?
Then there is the question of the timing. When did they have this information? Why did the Washington Post reporters wait until after no one else could be put on the ballot to run a 40-year-old story? Roy Moore has been in public office for decades, why did they not think to expose him long ago? It seems blatantly obvious that rather than merely reporting the news, they are actively involved in attempting to influence the outcome of the election.
The timing of the Roy Moore story and its potential effect on the outcome has a familiar ring to it.
The Washington Post had the story on Harvey Weinstein years ago, but sat on it until now. After all, they wouldn't want to harm his good friend Hillary Clinton's electoral chances, so who could blame them? And that's not out of the ordinary for them and other mainstream media outlets.
In 2004, Dan Rather ran a story with forged documents (too good to check) trying hurt Bush's chances. Mainstream media reporters did not call him on it. It was bloggers on the internet who did.
In 2008, the New York Times endorsed McCain in the primary. After he won the nomination, the NYT ran front-page story on an old McCain affair. Why would the NYT endorse McCain when it had this story? And why wait until after McCain was the nominee to attack him with it? Rhetorical question, we know why. By the way, the story was fake.
In 2012, in the Senate, Harry Reid (Democrat) said that Romney had not paid taxes for ten years. Reporters immediately went after Romney without attempting to verify the claim. It was a lie. After the election, Reid was asked if he felt bad about lying. He said, "We won, didn't we?"
In the most recent election, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and Obama funneled over $12 million to a law firm (to hide the payment) so the law firm could pay Fusion to create a fictional story about Trump. The media were well aware the story was fake, yet they endlessly investigated and continually reported the fictional Trump/Russia collusion story, and only lately giving coverage to the very real DNC/Russia collusion, Hillary Clinton's rigging of elections and violating campaign laws.
It's hardly surprising that the media is trusted only by a small minority of the public.
Art Betke
Prince George
