Pigs fly, and the WaPo writes the article I thought they wouldn’t write about Newt Gingrich’s divorce
It’s not perfect. But Paul Farhi offers a relatively fair narration of the events in question—you know, the ones I’ve been writing about (here and here) concerning the rumors that have been spreading for many years to the effect that Newt Gingrich blindsided his first wife by serving her with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.
Does Farhi read neo-neocon? I very much doubt it, although I suppose it’s not outside the realm of remote possibility. But at least he’s tackling something few in the MSM have gone near, and he indicts the press along the way:
The story has been trumpeted by Gingrich’s political opponents, endlessly recycled by the news media and repeated even by would-be allies, including social conservatives, who have long had doubts about the thrice-married former House speaker. As candidate Gingrich has risen to the top of some polls in the past few weeks, the story has inevitably surfaced again. Variations have turned up on MSNBC and in National Journal, various columns and blogs and two British newspapers in just the past week.
Farhi’s story covers much the same ground (although his is more expanded) as I did in yesterday’s post on the subject. He also manages to answer a question I asked yesterday (although he does not cite his source, so I’m still not sure whether the information is correct) as to whether Gingrich’s wife had a history of cancer prior to the surgery in question, which was for a benign tumor. Farhi says that she did.
There are three big problems I see with the piece, although two of them are not Farhi’s fault. The first is that it’s on the “lifestyle” pages. That means it probably won’t get much traction, although the WaPo can point to it as an example of their fairness. The second is that even if it were on the front pages I doubt it would change the fact that much of the MSM and media on the left will continue to milk the original misleading story dry, because it is so useful, and that at any rate the damage has already been done and the meme has had a long life of its own and is part of the background of what so many people think they know about Gingrich.
The third is that Farhi neglects to quote Gingrich’s story about what happened that day. This is subtly misleading [emphasis mine]:
Over the years, Gingrich himself has declined to comment on the story’s details, although when asked about his divorces and extramarital relationships, Gingrich has usually relied on some variation of the comment he made to the New York Times earlier this year: ”˜’There are things in my life I’m not proud of, and there are things in my life I’m very proud of.’’
Yet while the thrust of the story about his first divorce is not in dispute ”” Gingrich’s first wife, Jackie Battley, has said previously that the couple discussed their divorce while she was in the hospital in 1980 ”” other aspects of it appear to have been distorted through constant retelling…
Accounts of what happened next vary in detail, but primary sources agree on a central point: Gingrich wanted to talk divorce with his hospitalized wife.
But Gingrich has commented on it and denied that version, which makes it “in dispute”:
In the Mother Jones story [written in 1984 and where the tale originated], one-time Gingrich press secretary Lee Howell is quoted as saying that while Mrs. Gingrich was in the hospital, “Newt came up there with his yellow legal pad and he had a list of things on how the divorce was going to be handled. He wanted her to sign it. She was still recovering from surgery, still sort of out of it, and he comes in with a yellow sheet of paper, handwritten, and wants her to sign it.”
Gingrich said the account was not true.
So the genesis of the story was one of those “former staffer tells all” things. Not surprising.
Gingrich goes on to explain:
“What did happen in the hospital room is something that any couple who has gone though this can totally identify with,” Gingrich said.
“She was recovering and I actually went by with the girls (Jackie and her sister, Kathy Gingrich Lubbers) to see her and be with her, and I was trying to be helpful. And we got into an argument, which I think people who have gone through divorces can probably identify with.”
He said that in retrospect, going to the hospital that day, let alone arguing, was “stupid.”
Divorcing couples don’t even need an excuse to argue; they do it very naturally.
So, why did the WaPo decide to come out with this correction now? Is it, as commenter “Occam’s Beard” suggested, because “they think Newt is done, and so there’s no harm in lifting the leftist curse on him”?
Perhaps. Or perhaps, somewhat paradoxically, they’re trying to temporarily promote the Gingrich candidacy because they think he’d be easier to beat than Romney. Oh, who can fathom the Byzantine workings of the MSM?
Or maybe, just maybe (could it be?) somebody out there actually wanted to do some decent reporting?
Neo-neocon gets results!
I think when they go out of their way to destroy Gingrich, should be the nominee, they can point back to how fair they’ve been to him.
My Machiavellian guess, some people at the WaPo have a hunch that Newt actually has a chance to become the next President, and they are hedging their bets by trying to do a little anticipatory, precautionary, sucking up so that Newt won’t freeze them out come January 20th.
“Or maybe, just maybe (could it be?) somebody out there actually wanted to do some decent reporting? ”
I have my fantasies, too.
jjjjjjhyhbyghujyh1
Or perhaps, somewhat paradoxically, they’re trying to temporarily promote the Gingrich candidacy because they think he’d be easier to beat than Romney.
Yup, that’s another possibility. Perhaps I’m a bit too cynical, but I presume that the WaPo’s coverage is dictated by the Prime Directive: advance the leftist cause.
As an aside, am I the only one who finds annoying the leftist verbal tic of labeling someone with the appelation “Mother X?” (As in “Mother Jones,” “Mother Sheehan.”) It seems moronic, because a) there are lots of mothers out there, b) a woman’s reproductive history does not obviously bear (sorry) on the merit of her political views, c) the deference implicit in the usage deprecates nulliparous women by extension, and d) they never use “Father X.”
Apart from that, it’s a delightful habit.
“Or maybe, just maybe (could it be?) somebody out there actually wanted to do some decent reporting?”
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahah haha ha.
Thanks, I needed that.
If one remembers that the MSM are propagandists, it doesn’t matter what they say about anything.
Rule to remember: If they open their mouths, they are lying.
The only thing I read in my local paper is “Mutts.” Because I like the cute kitty cats and sweet dogs.
There is nothing else worth reading in the daily paper, except possibly a Clinique ad for a bonus plastic cosmetic container if the design is pleasant.
It is well established that well established facts do not interfere with the narrative. A few e.g. offered: They still refer to Scooter Libby as the man who “outed”
Valerie Plame, long after someone else has admitted to being the source, and Novak has confirmed this datum; the “Bush Lied” meme, the refutation of which is more complicated than most Democrats can understand; the “tax cut for the rich,” from which even I benefitted, and which were followed by increases in revenue to the government. Facts are strange things, which only the bourgeoisie seem to find interesting.
My theory is conspiracy free, but I like to think about the better in people, even reporters.
I suspect Mr. Farhi set out to get all the sordid details about the story and found out that the details didn’t match the narrative and so he continued but followed the facts. The piece is one which was focused enough to require actual research, and this focus is what caused the true details to surface.
The explanation for it being on the Lifestyles section just reflects that WaPo (like many of us) are just regarding Newt as the latest under the microscope and that this old story is not really what anyone would call hard news. If the actual details had been as originally told, we can only speculate that it would have been on the front or political pages.