General Discussion

hlthe2b

(114,187 posts)

25. YOU may conclude that. I take this as implied wrong-doing with no opportunity to explain

Mon May 17, 2021, 05:01 PM

May 2021

To assume there is not more to the story--especially given this occurred 40 years ago when there was ONLY one incident--while plying the reader with subsequent cases NOT IN EVIDENCE at the time is the worst kind of cowardly and unprofessional journalism.

Someone wants to make a name for themselves. AND after 40 years of absolutely SICK organized destruction of Jimmy Carter and his Presidency by the RW, you should be joining me in demanding BETTER. Some of this reporting makes it seem as though Carter, himself, were guilty of sexual misdeeds!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Washington Post has a pretty controversial article about Jimmy Carter up. [View all] BlueStater May 2021 OP

Paywall. Mr.Bill May 2021 #1

Here's a link about the article that doesn't require payment: BlueStater May 2021 #2

Carter is many great things but not clairvoyant luckone May 2021 #14

Never too late to bring people to justice on something like this. WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #3

While I find the pardon disturbing, did I miss WAPO's coverage of someone from hlthe2b May 2021 #4

From the author of the piece, on twitter: WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #5

Uhh, good journalism would be to find that out ahead of time before publishing such a piece. W_HAMILTON May 2021 #6

Find what out ahead of time? WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #7

An official response to the article (e.g., from the Carters themselves or their spokesperson) W_HAMILTON May 2021 #16

The author requested a comment and didn't get one; that's not necessarily a reason to hold a story. WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #17

lol, for a story about something that happened four decades ago? W_HAMILTON May 2021 #18

There's no rush. She's been working on this article since December. WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #21

If no one ever makes a comment or "remembers" anything former9thward May 2021 #38

I agree 100%. Without comment from those involved, it screams "hit piece" hlthe2b May 2021 #8

A hit piece against whom? WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #9

I should think it would be obvious, especially to any DUer who has witnessed 40 years of hlthe2b May 2021 #10

It's never a bad time to question a bad decision. WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #11

I do not argue against questioning--just one-side accusations with no due diligence to find out WHY! hlthe2b May 2021 #12

But the reporter did try to find out why. She talked to a bunch of people involved. WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #13

Yeah, sure hlthe2b May 2021 #23

Look, I get it. It's no fun to find out that people you like did hurtful things. WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #24

YOU may conclude that. I take this as implied wrong-doing with no opportunity to explain hlthe2b May 2021 #25

40 years ago. 1981 is 40 years ago. yardwork May 2021 #15

According to the article, part of the reason Carter approved it was because he was the one who WhiskeyGrinder May 2021 #20

I think Jimmy Carter's motives are clean. There's quite a few odd bits in that story, ... marble falls May 2021 #30

Yeah, thanks... Mental pause today. It is hard to think it has been that long. hlthe2b May 2021 #22

At the time Peter Yarrow was still married to Eugene McCarthy's daughter Klaralven May 2021 #40

Don't post washington post articles they are all behind a paywall. twin_ghost May 2021 #19

What about the NYT? What is is 40 fucking bucks a month? Mosby May 2021 #31

With the NY Times the first five articles are free. twin_ghost May 2021 #32

NYT 40 usd a month? LOL I pay 2 euros a month (2.43 usd at current FOREX) Celerity May 2021 #33

Its 17/mo. I was thinking of the wsj. Mosby May 2021 #36

If you are paying 17 USD per month for basic NYT access, you are so overpaying Celerity May 2021 #37

I'm not paying anything, I just looked up the fee Mosby May 2021 #41

I know, I get it fairly cheaply too. Treefrog May 2021 #39

Welcome to DU, but no, the WaPo and the NYT will continue to be (rightfully so) posted here, as they Celerity May 2021 #35

Dammit, I'm not going to be able to listen to Peter, Paul and Mary anymore. Crunchy Frog May 2021 #26

I know, right? Peter Paul and Mommy was a favorite album msfiddlestix May 2021 #27

I grew up listening to the Peter, Paul and Mary In Concert album. Crunchy Frog May 2021 #28

The thing to remember is that Yarrow and Nugent are independently creepy. Yarrow'd be creepy ... marble falls May 2021 #29

Here's an article on the Yarrow charges that does not have a paywall to deal with... bullwinkle428 May 2021 #34