More Cain

Several commentators and bloggers, notably this one, are making the argument that the women accusing Cain should be allowed to speak so we will know if Cain is guilty.

Really, even if the women come forward how will we know? Ultimately isn't it Cain's word against one other persons? While mounting reports certainly make Cain look like he's less than innocent, unless there are pictures or videos or incontrovertible eyewitnesses who saw more than Cain and a female employee leaving an event together, what are we left with except two people with two differing accounts of events 15 years old? Accounts that are being told in the glare and circus of presidential campaign?

Look -- I'm not trying to defend Cain here. Sexual harassment is serious stuff. I just doubt the public's ability to make a factually grounded determination of guilt or innocence based on what we know and what we might know if the NRA lifts the so-called gag order. Determining what really happened will certainly be much harder than those who so breezily assume that all we have to do is lift the gag order and then we will instantly know exactly what happened between Cain and his accusers. Maybe we will. More likely we won't.

Besides, we don't need to know if Cain is guilty to determine whether or not he is fit to be President. We already know that.

Politico Should Report the Facts on Cain but isn't Able

I often get the impression the political media is mostly an echo chamber that reports on what it tells itself. It will break a story and then create a narrative for the story to maximize conflict and drama independent of what's really happening.

A story in Politico on the Herman Cain scandal is a case-in-point.

Let's take a look at some of the statements in today's story, "Herman Cain's Sexual Misconduct Allegations: Damage Control Marked By Inconsistencies."

From the lede:

"Herman Cain's presidential campaign enters Tuesday facing a full-blown political crisis."

Full blown? How? He's pulling out of primaries? Donors are jumping ship? Staff are quitting in droves and issuing news releases? Mark Block announces it's a bad week for him to quit sniffing glue? Are we reporting here or editorializing? Politico may think it's a "full-blown" political crisis -- but are any outside the media saying this? If so, report that. But don't make it up.

"Cain and his spokesperson have offered a shifting and inconclusive series of responses."

Note the plural. Later, the article says "But by the end of the day, Cain reversed himself on many of the essential facts of the case."

It's true, Cain did initially say he wasn't aware of a settlement and then later reversed himself. While this is not a minor flip-flop, it is one. Not "many." If there's more than that, the Politico story didn't report it. It just stated it without evidence.

I'm not saying Cain has done a great job managing this media crisis (and that's where the crisis seems to be isolated now, in the media). But this Politico story does a lousy job reporting it, by not citing facts or third-party sources to back up its hyperbole.

It also would have been helpful had Politico bothered to report what HR experts and employment attorneys have to say about how business handles allegations of sexual harassment, where "settlements" don't automatically mean a determination of guilt. But I don't think comprehensive coverage was Politico's goal here.

And finally my favorite part of the story:

"Republican super strategist Karl Rove..."

Super Strategist? What? Faster than a speeding pundit? More powerful than a local elected official? Able to leap tall bromides in a single soundbite?

Just another day of creative writing at Politico.