Fred Thompson's cancer and Reuters' callous reporting
"Sure he's surviving lymphoma, but he opposes equal rights for gays!"
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A quarter century and two days ago, on April 2, 1982, President Ronald Reagan declared the month of April to be Cancer Control Month.
Fred Thompson's lymphoma is "indolent." My wife calls me that on some Saturday afternoons, and though they are different definitions of the term, Thompson assures us that his cancer has not made him ill in any way.
My life expectancy should not be affected. I am in remission, and it is very treatable with drugs if treatment is needed in the future--and with no debilitating side effects.
Reuters reports this, then goes off on a tangent:
The former senator from Tennessee did not address any presidential ambitions in the excerpts released by Fox. If he does enter the race, conservatives could be enticed by his steadfast positions against abortion, gay marriage and gun control.
Among the current Republican candidates, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney previously backed abortion and gay rights but now opposes them and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has supported abortion rights, gun control and gay rights
Why did Reuters select those issues? In general, the media supports abortions, banning guns, and expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions. (The terms they use, framing certain actions as potential "rights" and violations of the Second Amendment as rational control, are giveaways of their intent.)
Read More…
And does it matter regarding Fred Thompson's health that Mitt was for abortion, banning guns, and gay marriage before he was against them, or that Rudy's out in his own little orbit? John McCain lines up with Thompson on these things, but to the media, he has become the war candidate. (I think now McCain will actually know what it feels like to be Luke Skywalker trying to get out of the Death Star.)
If Thompson does enter the race, conservatives could be enticed by his steadfast oppositions to taxes, regulation, and America's enemies. But those aren't Reuters' issues. They are not the issues with which the news organization wishes voters to identify the Republican candidate for President of the United States.
I just called Fred Thompson, "the Republican candidate for President of the United States." Go figure. Like many folks, I won't endorse someone in April, but I can tell you that I think a Thompson entry into the race makes almost everything that has happened so far irrelevant. (Fundraising is never insignificant, but it would make cash-on-hand less effective and future money more difficult to raise.)
(While you're at the Reuters piece, check out the photo of an apparently anguished Fred Thompson, perhaps swatting a Reuters fly.)
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | What You Need To Know — Comments (51) »
Fred Thompson's cancer and Reuters' callous reporting 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
about any of that. I was questioning Reuters' insertion of those particular positions into the story, and tossing in two of the many Republican candidates as contrast. What's the point?
Reuters never said that Thompson's health might affect his candidacy. Rudy has not flip-flopped on those issues. Those issues do not define conservatism in toto. None of this has anything to do with Thompson's cancer.
Actually, I'm watching the drivel.
GOP campaigns have been using those issues to energize its base for decades -- and when it comes to GOP primaries, its the base that is critical. And with Fred blogging here, and appearing on two Fox Shows tonight (and, as far as I can determine, on none of the other networks) it would appear that if Fred is running (cross-fingers) he's recognized that "the base" is wide open, and looking for a candidate. So if anything, Reuters is doing Fred a favor by highlighting the issues that energizes the base -- and which separate him from the front-runners. (everyone is against high taxes, regulations, and America's enemies.)
...but he's also the worst news for the Democrats. Thus, maybe, the reporting style.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
is already the nominee? Or perhaps this there own doctrine of preemption.
Yes, grabbing issues that can be portrayed as red flags is a great way to paint a candidate.
...but I'd be willing to predict that the mention of Mr. Thompson's name in a news article will be followed habitually by a quick mention of the fact that he's attractive to conservatives, much in the same way that an unskilled writer of fiction tags characters with little physical or behavioral idiosyncrasies: the woman who is always blowing that "wayward wisp of hair" off her face, or the man whose "eyes are a little too close together".
I'd also predict that independents/moderates won't care.
"I should be allowed to think" -- John Linnell
I just can't believe it...Democrats be "mean spirited". Why are we surprised?
Good point about the terminology. Inevitably the MSM uses "rights" to describe the gay marriage agenda, etc. Such language, of course, implicitly signals that opponents of such an agenda are looking to squash somebody's well-established 'rights'. And, I say this as a libertarian-leaning conservative who has no major problem with individual state legislatures (not courts though judicial "discoveries" of previously unthinkable "rights") deciding to allow gay marriage.
The MSM terminology that always grinds my gears is the "This proposed [insert whatever tax cut] is estimated to cost the government X amount of money over the next Y number of years." Ugh. First, that ignores decades of historical data that show revenues rise as a result of tax relief. But more importantly, the use of the terminology implies that it is the GOVERNMENT'S money in the first place rather than the people's. Oy vey.
_I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. -Reagan_
Because these are traditional core issues to a large part of the target Republican electoral base?
Reuters may indeed be "callous" in their reporting, but the statements about Romney's and Giuliani's stances on the given issues were not inaccurate.
Simpler Reuters:
Now, watch this drive.