More on Kulongoski/Goldschmidt

The mainstream media double standard has never been more starkly exposed.

Will the Oregonian cover this story? Will it print Fred Leonhardt's claim that he told Ted Kulongoski about Goldschmidt's secret? It doesn't appear likely.

I spoke with Jeff Mapes to confirm that he actually did have the lunch with Fred Leonhardt where Leonhardt told the whole story about Goldschmidt and Kulongoski. Mapes would not confirm or deny the meeting, and said that he was not going to be talking about the issue with anyone. He said that the Oregonian had already done a "detailed" story on the question of when and if Kulongoski knew about Goldschmidt, and that was that.

Well, that's fine, but all it does is let pajama bloggers like me speculate.

Mapes had the whole story five months before Nigel Jaquiss broke it, and for some reason the Oregonian did nothing. It would be very interesting to know what actually happened. Mapes is a tough reporter - he would have taken the issue to an editor, and at some point up the chain someone had to call him off the story. A guy like Mapes would not just decide not to chase what would have been the biggest story of his life when he had a credible source laying the whole thing out for him.

So the higher ups at the Oregonian probably squelched it. When Nigel Jaquiss broke the story and won the Pullitzer for it, the Oregonian had well-deserved scorn heaped upon them for the kid's glove way they reported Goldschmidt's "affair" with a 14 year old.

But their behavior now is even worse than that. The newspaper's apologist - er - public editor tried to explain away the Oregonian's lack of pursuit of the story because all they had was an "anonymous" source.

That, my friends, is a bald faced lie. There is no definition by which Leonhardt's meeting with Mapes could be described as an anonymous source. He was on record, not anonymous.

As the mainstream media studiously ignores this story, why don't we anticipate some of the reasons they might give for not covering and do a little analysis?

1) This is a "he-said/she-said" controversy, so there is no way of knowing if it is true.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. The media goes with "he-said/she-said" stories all the time. How about the Hastert/Foley issue? There were accusations that Hastert knew about the Foley e-mails and did nothing. Just the word of accusers was enough to guarantee front page coverage for days. The accusers had an obvious political motivation to damage Hastert. Newspaper after newspaper demanded that Hastert resign if the accusations were true.

But in the Leonhardt case, "he-said/she-said" is an automatic trump card. No story here folks, please keep moving.

2) Leonhardt's accusation that he told Kulongoski is not credible

It is hard to imagine a more credible accusation, actually. Leonhardt is a liberal Democrat whose livelihood depends on the goodwill of Democrat candidates. He has nothing to gain professionally - and a lot to lose - by making this claim.

His recount of how he came to know about the rape, the lawsuit and when and why he told Kulongoski has the ring of truth. Ted Kulongoski was his good friend. They both socialized together and dealt with each other professionally. He knew this awful thing about Kulongoski's #1 political patron and when Ted was planning to run for AG, Leonhardt figured he would warn his friend, because if it came out there would be lots of collateral damage.

In fact, here is what would not be credible: it would not be credible if Leonhardt claimed he DIDN'T tell Kulongoski about Goldschmidt's secret. Imagine - your best friend is going to run for statewide office, and you know a dark secret about his biggest patron which, if it came out, would destroy your friend's candidacy, and you DON'T tell him?

3) This is old news, because in 2004, both the Willamette Week and the Oregonian ran stories that included Leonhardt's claim that he told Kulongoski.

This is news now for a couple reasons: First, how Leonhardt learned the secret, and the questionof why, when and where he told Kulongoski is far more detailed now than ever known before.

Second, Kulongoski broght the issue up by taking bows for Jessica's Law. He is casting himself as a protector of our young. If there is a credible accusation that he knowingly involved a child molestor in his administration, that is news.

Third, in the aftermath of the Foley/Hastert issue, the question of elected officials sheltering pedophiles is newly relevant.

None of this will matter to the mainstream media, however. It is almost as if they no longer really care when their bias is on full and obvious display for all to see.

Meanwhile, mysteriously, circulation plummets.