Did my sarcasm escape you? Or are you expressing shock at T dog's unbelievable spelling error, assuming he meant construct?
When it comes to Liberal scandals, the liberal media are quite happy to skin them once, and make off with their pound of flesh. When it comes to conservative scandals, the vultures in the left wing media keep circling until they are picking at bones. (which is exactly what we saw last night)
So you're saying that the media should exercise discretion when it suits you, but not so much when it doesn't?
Hart, Edwards and Spitzer were flayed politically. They became non-players. What was there left for the media to do? Meanwhile, Gingrich is too dumb to die.
If edwards was to run for democratic nominee in 2016, would you find it appropriate for the moderators in the debate to ask him if he had a small pecker because his ex-wife said he did?
No, I'm saying reporting things from 15 to 20 years ago should be not front page headlines or open debates. In journalism school they teach you about the timeliness of news. Things in the present take precedence over things that happened 20 years ago. One of the reasons for this, as you are taught in journalism school, is that old stories from 20 years ago tend to be very unreliable. Facts are usually absent and the stories heavily rely on one person's weak memory of that event. Things that happen recently tend to have the opposite characteristics. They tend to be easy to corroborate and much more reliable.