Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Checks and Balances... But Not on the Media

Herman Cain. Educated. Successful. Businessman. Cancer survivor. CEO. Womanizer?

A recent CNN/ORC poll shows that support for Herman Cain has dropped significantly. The poll, which indicates only 14% now support Cain, makes the claim that this is due to the sexual harassment allegations made recently against the former CEO.

Page 13 (question 25) is as follows:

50% of respondents do NOT believe Herman Cain?! How? What is this based on? Four women came forth and made allegations. That's it. This posting has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting Herman Cain. This has everything to do with the fact that the media can publish anything it wants, and regardless of truth or evidence or anything of the sort, if the headline gets read enough times, people start to believe it.

Where are the checks and balances on this? What in the world happened to innocent until proven guilty? 

Let's get some things straight. There have been no lawsuits against Herman Cain. He hasn't been arrested. In fact, the accusations Sharon Bialek made were so atrocious, so heinous, and showed such an abuse of power, do you know how many police reports she filed? Do you know how many media outlets and high-profile celebrity attorneys she contacted at the time she claims these events happened? Zero. In spite of these claims, do you know how much physical evidence has come forth? None. But for some reason, one in two surveyed do not believe Herman Cain. It appears he has been taken right to the guillotine without proof or evidence or anything that shows the allegations are more than just an attempt to quickly eliminate a popular GOP contender. People seem to fail in finding out the truth. They read a headline and take it as fact. They disregard the fact that no actual evidence has been presented. The media knows this; it's their best tool.

What message does this send? This tells people that if they don't like someone, whether it be a presidential candidate, a manager at your workplace, a neighbor, or someone you just disagree with, that they can round up a handful of their female friends and claim sexual harassment against the person with whom you disagree. This poll indicates that this tactic succeeds. It also shows that the key part of this plan is the power of numbers. If only one or two accusers are involved, the plan might not work. Going from one or two to four or five all of a sudden makes accusations fact. It removes judge and jury and marches the target straight towards execution.

The media will win. Major news outlets are now publishing headlines showing Cain's drop (which, is all it takes) and the game will probably be over soon for Cain. Some have called this a character assassination, and the murder weapon is a headline.


  1. This isn't proof of liberal bias or any such thing. I understand what you want to believe, and I understand what you do believe, but I don't understand how you could get to your conclusion. The fact that four women, in the space of two weeks, have accused Cain of sexual harrassment. Cain at first denied it. Then he changed his story, that he knew there had been pay offs but didn't know any other details. Then he changed his story with every media appearance. That's why people don't believe him. Either you have missed a huge chunk of the pie you've been writing about, or you are disingenious in your intentions.

  2. Thank you for your post. I respect your comments, and though I respectfully disagree with your position, I appreciate the civil manner in which you commented. I'll address your comment in parts.

    1. "The fact that four women..." This goes back to the number. Just because it's more than one, two, three... or whatever the numbers is doesn't make accusations magically turn to fact. If that is the case, what is the threshold for a claim transitioning into a fact? Is it two accusers, three accusers, etc?

    2. "Cain denied it." Yes, of course he did. He still denies it. He hasn't changed his story. Cain was the CEO of the NRA. What two of the accusers received were termination of employment agreements. These are not and will never be settlements. When he spoke of them he answered this question. A CEO is not going to know the details nor the number of termination of employment agreements that occur under his watch. When asked about a settlement, he said he didn't know of any, which was correct. Termination of employment agreements occur each and every day, and a CEO typically wouldn't know about any of them.

    3. "Then he changed his story with every media appearance." I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please provide evidence to back this.

    In my opinion, people don't believe him because the liberal media has tossed this story around so much it has clouded over the fact there has been zero proof to the allegations. There has been no police reports, no lawsuits, nothing. But, in the media's world, proof isn't a requirement. If it gets to the headlines, that's all it takes to sway opinions. My posting had nothing to do with support for or against Cain, nor was it an expression of belief or disbelief about the accusations. I'm merely pointing out that a simple thing has happened. Four women accused a man of harassment but no proof has been provided. In a country that prides itself on the mantra "innocent until proven guilty" the public believes the accusers over the accused to much that support for him has fallen dramatically.

    These are just my opinions. I would love to see a follow-up. Thanks again.

  3. A sympathetic PauliteNovember 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM

    Welcome to the club, Mr. Cain! You know you've made it to the big time when this stuff goes on.

    Ron Paul supporters have LONG known media bias as the media calls the most-elected candidate in the race unelectable routinely. Crazy Uncle Ron, Loony Ron, etc are par for the course. Can you imagine if the news media had just reported the news instead of editorializing in this way?

    Get used to it, grow a thick skin, it has only just begun.

  4. A sympathetic Paulite. Thank you for your post. Hmmm, I do have to admit: it's an interesting take. You're absolutely correct; the media will editorialize anything it wants no matter how untrue or how hurtful it might be. But my question to you is: is this right? Should we stand for this? With the media's power and obvious lean, doesn't this create a dangerous situation? LME exists to get around the media's game. We should always be on our toes. Sometimes a thick skin in the face of lies isn't enough when the headline's damage is done. What do you think?

  5. You said four women came forth with allegations, but there were actually only three - Karen, Sharon, and Ginger. Just because the media says another person settled at the NRA doesn't mean anything to me because I no longer believe anything they say unless it is backed up with actual facts.

  6. Anonymous, thanks for your comment. At the time this was posted there were headlines about 4 women. One came forth, and that was Sharon. Karen hadn't released her name yet. The two others were anonymous at the time. Magically, they disappeared.......? Who knows. I noticed Sharon and Karen are both not in the headlines any more. I guess you don't need to trample on a body after you assassinate it, huh? Their damage is done.

    And yes, I couldn't agree with you more. You said, "Just because the media says another person settled at the NRA doesn't mean anything to me because I no longer believe anything they say unless it is backed up with actual facts."

    Our post said, "If only one or two accusers are involved, the plan might not work. Going from one or two to four or five all of a sudden makes accusations fact. It removes judge and jury and marches the target straight towards execution." So yup, we are in line with you. As of now there is NO proof. None. I will not believe and go along with anything until I see it. To me, Cain is still 100% innocent.

    Thank you for your post. We hope to hear back from you. If you like our blog, please tell a friend :-)

  7. I dont get your complaint. The media should NOT report that a major candidate is being accused of impropriety or infidelity? Or just that they should not report such facts if they are about candidates you like?

  8. Anonymous - Thank you for your post. First, let's get one fact straight: We do not "like" or endorse any one candidate.

    Our complaint is that the media is bringing forth people/accusers WITHOUT the proof behind what they're saying. The media is using headline tactics to hurt someone's standings. There has been NO proof to any allegations. There are no police records, no recordings, nothing. Just a couple women and their word.

    The media can report on anything it wants. Our problem is that without giving whole stories (like there is no actual proof to these allegations) the media is swaying opinions (the proof is in the polls). Just look at headlines alone.

    Take a look at this brief scenario. Let's say Cain is 100% innocent of all these allegations. Take that in this example as a given. Do you think it's fair for his support and numbers to drop if he did absolutely nothing wrong? The fault would come to the media for not giving a whole story... just empty shell allegations.

    Thank you again, and we hope to hear back from you.

  9. It is POSSIBLE the media's coverage is to blame, but it's not necessarily FACT. People opinions change as more accusers and evidence comes forward in any situation. Cain simply had too many women coming forward with similar accusations in my opinion. If these women are lying, he should have already filed defamation lawsuits against them.

    Speaking of receiving a fair trail... Don't you think Rep Issa's is politicizing the Fast and Furious investigation that he is leading? His tweets and new F&F website promotes a guilty verdict and Holder's demise even while the investigation is ongoing. Do you think that is ethical?

  10. TruthSerumUSA - Welcome back! Thanks for your post.

    First, you're correct. It's not an absolute fact that the media's coverage is to blame. But also, the number of accusers should be irrelevant. I can't see how one or two are accusers and Cain is merely the accused, but if it's four or five, they are victims and Cain is a harasser. Our problem is that the media is not only bringing these women forward before fact, but it's headlining it so much that, as the poll we quoted shows, Cain is no longer believed by the majority. He could be 100% innocent (and I still think he is until I see proof), but because of the headlining, he fell. To me, if the media brought forth accusers and said "here is Mrs. Accuser. She is accusing Mr. Cain of xxxxxxxxxx. She has 3 hard copy police reports of his alleged sexual harassment as well as recorded phone conversations, independent witnesses, love notes, (etc. etc. etc.)" I would absolutely believe it. I never saw any of that, and, in my opinion, it was very unfair to Mr. Cain. On a small side note, yes, his handling of it wasn't fair... but what more can he do than say "no, I didn't do it?" You can't shoot down evidence if you're not presented any. At the end of the day, it was his word vs. the accusers; 50/50. The swing vote: the constant broadcasts of the media.

    With regards to your Fast and Furious investigation, I do not support the way Issa is handling it, per se. Every American has a right to a fair trial. Holder is innocent (I believe the biggest accusation against him is that he knew about the details of this faulty program and intentionally tied them up) until proven guilty. I say "per se" because he is not in court defending himself. He is in front of Congressman grilling him for information. They can accuse him all they way; it's just for show. I'm not big on the attack dog play Issa is doing, but it's not as serious as if he was in court. If Issa wants to do it the right way, he should make a charge, present evidence and let Holder have his day in court.

    Thank you again! Hope all is well.