I ask you for evidence of their motivation on timing and your reply to ask why now in a general sense?

He wasn’t the Republican candidate for senate until “now” and in the last 30 years no other news organization ran the story, but somehow you’re now upset at WAPO for being the ones that actually did?

And even if that question were somehow more applicable to mine, it’s about as solid as asking how the towers fell when jet fuel burns at 1200 degrees but steel doesn’t melt until it’s gets to 1790 degrees.

You want everyone to be wary of WAPO’s timing, how many times have you made a point to say that there’s no evidence against Moore and he deserves the benefit of doubt?

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 7:15 AM. Reason : S]

12/15/2017 7:14:45 AM

Quote :

"It happened 30 years ago and Roy Moore has been in office for 25 years."

What percentage of those years did Moore spend running for national office? Why would the Post devote large resources to cover an Alabama state level politician, positively or negatively?

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 12:43 PM. Reason : Oops]

12/15/2017 12:42:58 PM

i'm still curious to learn how wapo was supposed to publish before they knew about it

12/15/2017 12:50:46 PM

the country needed a show, and they got it

12/15/2017 12:56:08 PM

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 12:59 PM. Reason : lost cause]

12/15/2017 12:58:19 PM

i just want to find out who's hiding the time machine okay!

12/15/2017 12:59:11 PM

So there's absolutely no one here who thinks, without a shadow of a doubt, WaPo didn't hold this information and then release it at the most politically expedient moment?

They can claim they had to fact check, source check and there's no arguing with it because there's no proof, but come on, to think they weren't playing games with their information is just naive.

12/15/2017 1:01:12 PM

or you could share your source that everyone has asked you for.

12/15/2017 1:02:49 PM

I don't know that it can be argued that the Washington Post released its story at the most politically expedient moment. There wasn't much of a window between Roy Moore winning his primary election and when the story was released. I would think that it would have been more politically expedient to hold onto the story until closer to the general election.

12/15/2017 1:05:46 PM

^^^no, wapo didn't try to time politics of this. only fox news does that and apparently only fox news neglects to do things like check sources

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:07 PM. Reason : a]

12/15/2017 1:06:55 PM

I can't believe rjr is doubling down on this Wapo stuff. I guess he doesn't realize that it's received more pulitzers for investigative journalism than any other newspaper aside from the NY Times. Oh, but the NY Times leans left, so it's fake news too.

12/15/2017 1:19:14 PM

reality leans left

12/15/2017 1:21:05 PM

for rjrumfel:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/12/08/how-washington-post-journalists-broke-the-story-of-allegations-against-roy-moore/?utm_term=.9a113f22105a

Quote :

"A new poll by the Poynter Institute, a journalism nonprofit, finds that while overall trust and confidence in the press has increased during the Trump administration, 52 percent of those surveyed don’t trust the news media. More than half of America is skeptical of journalists’ motives. With that in mind, The Post launched a new series aimed at deconstructing the journalism process while answering questions about how reporting works."

it's only 6 minutes long, watch it

tl;dr:
she was in alabama to write about roy moore supporters, not even moore himself, when she learned about the rumors. this was in october, i.e. after the primary. then, being skeptical, they researched the story to get more details and vetted the people they were interviewing, i.e. they were responsible journalists.

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 1:23 PM. Reason : let me know if you still need us to hold your hand through this]

12/15/2017 1:22:57 PM

yeah, unfortunately science and facts happen to lean towards the side of progress. Still can't trust WAPO though. They were totally calculating in releasing the truth at a time when it had the potential to influence an election that had high stakes. Just as bad as Fox News, which doesn't even try to be truthful.

12/15/2017 1:24:12 PM

Ok - so I can stop spouting bs here, what I initially read was true but the numbers were off. Way off.

In Alabama, state law dictates that you must file for a replacement 76 days prior to the election. For my thinking to have been correct, that means WaPo would have had to have broken the article (the day after the deadline) in what, late September. So yes, I was wrong. I doubt they had all of their information together back then.

12/15/2017 1:36:32 PM

since october is after september, i would say that is a safe guess

12/15/2017 1:38:10 PM

^^ do you remember where you originally read that and can you link to it?

12/15/2017 1:40:25 PM

There's a million other reasons why you could assume WaPo wouldn't hold the story, but here's a big one: what if another organization had found the story and beat them to the press? They would have lost a huge scoop.

12/15/2017 1:44:55 PM

About the 76 days?

I had to go back about 5 or 6 pages from google, and it was stated in a Weekly Standard article (yes I know, Weekly Standard) but it was linked to another WaPo article for the specifics, and when I tried to follow it, I hit my WaPo paywall.

the WaPo link is here, maybe someone else can read it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/09/the-gops-roy-moore-and-steve-bannon-nightmare-just-came-true/?utm_term=.6ea260cf37a0

12/15/2017 1:48:18 PM

the WaPo link mentions that it is too late to replace a nominee (open in incognito browser), how did you jump from that to "the wapo intentionally released this after it was too late to replace a nominee"

sounds like you fell for fake news

12/15/2017 1:55:40 PM

I don't really visit any sites that intentionally deal in fake news (CNN haha, j/k) but I did fall for someone's post here, I honestly can't remember whose it was though.

12/15/2017 1:58:21 PM

are you still comfortable equating the Washington Post with Fox News?

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/15/2017 2:02:00 PM

Not sure that I ever equated those two. I've equated MSNBC to Fox, and vice versa. And at this point, CNN should probably belong to that series, but not sure if I've ever done that with WaPo.

12/15/2017 2:03:56 PM

Quote :

"For the record, I harbor no ill will toward WaPo. Fox News is just as egregious. I read WaPo on a daily basis. I just don't agree with what they've done with Moore. It is just too much of a coincidence."

Previous page.

12/15/2017 2:11:16 PM

Quote :

" What percentage of those years did Moore spend running for national office? Why would the Post devote large resources to cover an Alabama state level politician, positively or negatively? "

This is kind of the point I'm making. They only devoted resources when they thought maybe they could alter a special election. Its opportunistic journalism.

Quote :

" April 26th- Roy Moore announces his campaign. "

even considering the points made on this page, they still waited a really long time.


El Gimpy acts like they did the investigation out of concern for the women but they didn't even think to put resources to the story until Roy Moore could not be taken off the ballot. Its not like no one knew who roy moore was before he ran for senate either. He has been in national news a lot over the bible thing.

The fact that journalism only takes place when a seat is at stake is the issue.

Opportunistic investigations lack credibility. There is a reason we have a statute of limitations in our society.

Quote :

"what if another organization had found the story and beat them to the press? They would have lost a huge scoop."

It was a safe bet that other organizations weren't operating in the 1980s.

Quote :

"He wasn’t the Republican candidate for senate until “now” and in the last 30 years no other news organization ran the story, but somehow you’re now upset at WAPO for being the ones that actually did?"

They didn't just "run" the story because it had never been a story mentioned anywhere until then. They knocked on the woman's door and asked her to tell them about the allegations she had never made against roy moore.

The evidence of timing is only circumstantial so there is nowhere else to go. No matter what, you guys will trust that the timing of the story was a coincidence.

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 2:19 PM. Reason : with these kind of allegations, it shouldn't matter if the purp is "only a state judge"]

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 2:22 PM. Reason : f]

12/15/2017 2:14:56 PM

Fox News is on its own planet and has no equal

12/15/2017 2:16:43 PM

GUYZ THEY DIDN'T EVEN THINK TO PUT RESOURCES ON A STORY THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT!

THIS IS 4-D GO FISH!

MAGA!

12/15/2017 2:21:27 PM

Ok so I called WaPo as egregious as Fox, based on an incorrect premise.

12/15/2017 2:22:38 PM

Quote :

"They didn't just "run" the story because it had never been a story mentioned anywhere until then. They knocked on the woman's door and asked her to tell them about the allegations she had never made against roy moore."

This isn’t completely true. A LOT of local political reporters said on the day the story broke they had heard talk of it for years. And yeah, they did. That’s why they are some of the best investigative journalists in the world..

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 2:24 PM. Reason : X]

12/15/2017 2:24:10 PM

I'd still like to know what article motivated you to post this:

Quote :

"This is not a slap in the face to Trump. This is just a win done by partisan hackery on the part of WaPo. Had they broken the story with enough time for the Republican party to pick another candidate, things very likely would have been different today. Again, the left is showing how disconnected they are. They better be careful and not let this get them complacent. Which we all know that's what is going to happen. Complacency lost them the presidency in 2016."

Don't be ashamed. We're all friends here.

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 2:28 PM. Reason : V link it up my man. i know you can find it]

12/15/2017 2:24:14 PM

I just said - it wasn't an article, it was a posting.

12/15/2017 2:27:21 PM

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ...loading...]

12/15/2017 2:42:19 PM

Quote :

"Not sure that I ever equated those two. I've equated MSNBC to Fox, and vice versa. And at this point, CNN should probably belong to that series, but not sure if I've ever done that with WaPo."

12/15/2017 2:46:38 PM

Quote :

"A LOT of local political reporters said on the day the story broke they had heard talk of it for years. And yeah, they did. That’s why they are some of the best investigative journalists in the world.."

This is my point. They didn't think it was worth pursuing until it had the opportunity to switch a senate seat.

12/15/2017 2:49:28 PM

^^ since the 2016 election, Fox News has joined the others in the bottom right hand corner of that chart

12/15/2017 2:53:49 PM

^^This is pure conjecture and you know it. They don't deserve some presumption of innocence? Or is that only for people accused of fondling underage girls against their will?

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 2:56 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/15/2017 2:56:20 PM

I'm not saying any person in particular is guilty. Presumption of innocence applies to invididuals not situations.
Someone has done something wrong though.

The ones who heard about it before the statute of limitations and didn't report to the police, are guilty of a crime. The article about the mall said the police never got any complaints about Roy Moore.

Additionally, anyone who heard about this while he was in public office, and didn't report it to the media, or any media who heard about it and didn't run the story are all in the wrong.

I have no problem with the story but it should have happened a lot sooner based on the way they say they found out about it.

[Edited on December 15, 2017 at 3:02 PM. Reason : some of the excuses being made might work if moore wasn't in the national spotlight over commandment]

12/15/2017 3:01:06 PM

I agree, someone has done something very, very wrong.

12/15/2017 3:19:12 PM

Quote :

"Fox News has joined the others in the bottom right hand corner of that chart"

On surface I tend to agree with you, particularly if we're talking about the pundit shows like Hannity. But I THINK the chart is addressing the actual quality and substance of the journalism, i.e., the news articles themselves.

12/15/2017 3:54:08 PM

Quote :

"The fact that journalism only takes place when a seat is at stake is the issue."

Cmon man, that's absurd. A national paper can rarely spend resources on deep investigative journalism for stories that are not national stories. If this was a 2018 election, this may have never come to light because there would be tons of elections to cover, in this case resources could be focused. Its deeply cynical to call that "opportunistic journalism."

the 10 commandments story was about the issue not the person. There was really no call do to a deep investigation of Moore himself.

If you want to blame someone, blame the Alabama papers and reporters that heard rumors and never hunted them down.

12/15/2017 6:04:54 PM

I'd blame the Alabama GOP. Vet your candidates much? What about Luther Strange looking up some oppo research during the primary? Newspapers don't have any inherit responsibilities to produce every damning thing about a candidate before some deadline. The Alabama GOP absolutely has a responsibility to produce a senate candidate that isn't a pedophile.

12/15/2017 7:20:57 PM

Will Renee Ellmers try to get her seat back?

Quote :

"We need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman’s level and what everything that she is balancing in her life – that’s the way to go"

1/17/2018 3:28:57 PM

The latest generic polls are baaaadddddd news for Democrats. With wages now increasing and inflation showing signs of picking up along with tax cut benefits coming in for everyone (for now) I’m thinking Dems have a chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I suspect by 2020 the steam will be gone and we are in or on verge of recession and the Dems win the White House but the damage will be hard to undo.

2/14/2018 9:31:19 AM

Presuming you meant bad news for Republicans? haha

2/14/2018 9:51:18 AM

I was looking at the MorningConsult/NBC generic and it had R+1 for the first time in over a year..

2/14/2018 10:22:11 AM

Oh wow. I was confused because you mentioned "bad news for Democrats" but then mentioned they had a chance to grab seats. Figured it was a typo.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Latest as of today:

Quote :

"Wednesday, February 14 Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 47, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +5 President Trump Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 45, Disapprove 50 Disapprove +5 Congressional Job Approval Economist/YouGov Approve 12, Disapprove 68 Disapprove +56 2018 Generic Congressional Vote Economist/YouGov Democrats 42, Republicans 38 Democrats +4 Direction of Country Economist/YouGov Right Direction 39, Wrong Track 52 Wrong Track +13"

[Edited on February 14, 2018 at 10:24 AM. Reason : make it easier to read]

2/14/2018 10:23:47 AM

My bad. I meant in 2018 it looks like it’s trending against Dems.

The second part was a separate thought more related to the business cycle and where we are and are headed in the intermediate term future (2020 presidential election).

2/14/2018 10:43:00 AM

Ah, gotcha. Yea right now, unless something catastrophic happens in the economy, or some court-admissible evidence is produced regarding the ongoing investigations, I'm not sure the Democrats make much headway this election.

2/14/2018 12:07:09 PM

The biggest challenge Dems face right now is just how many of them are up for reelection. In the senate there will be 23 dems, 2 dem-leaning independents, and only 8 republicans running as incumbents.

With the congressional disapproval rate so high, people are likely to vote out current members, regardless of party affiliation. So even though it's the republican majority making congress so miserable, Dems have much more to lose. Republicans can just screw up on purpose to keep making the current seat holders look worse.

2/14/2018 4:53:26 PM

Sure looks like a massive tsunami coming. Trump is basically gonna be told to stay away across all districts with any suburbs or college educated populace from the looks of it.

I think removing Pelosi from leadership would be smart and take one of the only talking points away from the GOP but it won’t happen obviously since she is a fundraising machine and was a pretty effective speaker.

[Edited on March 14, 2018 at 7:41 AM. Reason : The post tax-cut GOP poll surge is long gone too]

3/14/2018 7:40:21 AM