"Sexless on the City"

New York: Why the bizarre spin on the Sex on the City scandal? And how could you not run with Bloomberg's girlfriend's quote from the New York Daily News: "Taylor, 52, takes the bus every day to her midtown office and rides the subway to business appointments. In the six years Taylor and Bloomberg have lived together, she said she has never had reason to want or need personal NYPD security. 'I don't have security in Bogota or Nairobi or Moscow when I travel there on business, why would I need security in the safest city in the world?' Taylor told the Daily News yesterday."

Howard Kurtz: That's an interesting contrast. Bloomberg generally takes the subway to work but obviously he has, and should have, security. I'm not covering the story day to day but I do think these developments should be reported.

Now, the only real discussion of the Guiliani scandal was in this
Kurtz piece which presented this as an issue of he said/she said between the Guiliani campaign and Politico, which did the investigative reporting that broke that Rudy's mistress had benefitted from city security and that that security seemed to have been purposely covered up via splitting up the billing between many city agencies.  As that story opened:

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

The documents, obtained by Politico under New York's Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

How did Howard Kurtz "report" this? As a breaking story that the Guiliani campaign contested.  Kurtz did not get into the question of whether Politico was accurate in its reporting.  In fact, what did he write:

...the newspaper said the former New York City mayor had billed tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses to obscure city agencies for repeated visits to the Hamptons...

Actually, Howie, the newspaper didn't just say he did it, they offered irrefutable, documented proof that security expenses were billed to obscure (obscure being aid to the disabled and the poor) city agencies.  But sure, let's pretend it was just a claim. And let's not bother to address the other aspects of this story that have come out in the past few days:  that Mistress Nathan was being ferried around by New York's finest even when she wasn't with Giuliani, that the police were a taxi service for her and her family,  that Giuliani refused to address this issue when it was first raised in 2002, and that no documentation has been produced to show that those city agencies were ever reimbursed.  

What we get is a denial from Giuliani, a rebuttal from Politco's Editor in Chief, an explanation from an unnamed Giuliani spokesman, and then from a named Giuliani spokesman.  Three to one, with nothing from Kurtz addressing the validity of the claims made, thus concluding the fair and balanced coverage from Mr. Media Critic.

To be honest, this would matter little if The Washington Post were reporting on the scandal.  But, if you were one who only got one's information from The Washington Post, it is likely that "Sex ON the City" would have little or no meaning to you.  You would not understand that there was a major scandal brewing around a Republican top runner.  No, you would have long reporting about rumors of rumors of rumors of Obama being a Muslem and how, well, things like putting weak (if not horrid) reporting on the front page spreads these malicious lies.  You would have lots of coverage of spats between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. You would have more bad fashion reporting on Hillary's clothing.

But, Sex on the City?  Absolutely not.  

Here is a scandal that has it all:

* Sex
* Illicit sex (at that)
* Money
* (Perhaps) Criminal activity re that money
* Misuse of government resources, taxpayers' money

And, well, these are the things that we know.  How about reasonable speculation as to one of the most significant events of American history: September 11th?

The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was located under the World Trade Center building at Rudy's demand / instruction, in part (reportedly) so that it would be a walk from his office. That EOC was destroyed on 9/11 and its location there, against the specialists' recommendations, likely increased the death toall that day.  Guiliani, reportedly, had sexual trysts there with his mistress (now wife).  One can question, reasonably, whether the EOC was recklessly located simply to provide "America's Mayor" a convenient place for illicit sexual trysts.

Why hasn't The Post reported this? According to The Post's Lois Romano:

Ann Arbor, Mich.: I wonder if you can explain why The Post underplayed the story about Rudy Giuliani and his girlfriend that was uncovered by the Politico.

Lois Romano: I would disagree that it was underplayed. If you're asking why we didn't put it on the front page, that is because we had nothing new to add to the Politico story at this time.

The scandal has continued to have information added to it but that is irrelevant to Post readers who remain, well, in the dark.  Perhaps The Post is striving to preserve Washinton's reputation as a stodgy city, it is determined to remain SexLess In the City when it comes to Sex On the City.

Comments