A close adviser and chief fundraiser to Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was indicted on fraud charges. Yet if you read about the story in the Chicago Tribune, you won't read which party the governor belongs to. That's right. Blagojevich is a Democrat, yet the Trib didn't bother to include this fact in their piece.
Meanwhile, Bryan over at Hot Air showed how the Kansas City Star reported the resignation of Kansas's attorney general following a sex scandal. The original article completely omitted Paul Morrison's Democrat affiliation. Only after a phone call to the writer of the article did the Star amend the article by adding the word "Democrat" to the fourth paragraph.
+_+
CORRECTION (12/17/07, 1PM PST): In a parenthetical in the original post, it was incorrectly stated that the hard copy of the Los Angeles Times's version of the Trib article did not state that the Illinois governor was a Democrat. In fact, buried in the middle of the eighth paragraph of the article, it states, "Blagojevich, a Democrat." I regret the error.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Politics and Deaths
December 16, 2007 - 22:11 ET by ScrapironOld, Retired and glad of it.
Just use the same selection procedure for determining what party a criminal politician belongs to that I use when reading the Obit's in the paper. If it doesn't identify the party, it's a democrat. If the obit's for a young person doesn't give a cause of death, it's drugs. 99.44/100% accurate.
I suppose the readers of
December 16, 2007 - 22:21 ET by JerI suppose the readers of the Tribune and the good citizens of Illinois [surely the most interested parties in the possible wrongdoings of a state's administration advisor] who were unaware of which party their governor belonged to could have simply checked the editorial accompanying the Tribune article and noted Blagojevich's Democratic affiliation prominently displayed near the top of the (very critical) opinion essay.
Once again, the evidence to support the claim of a media conspiracy to shield the party identity of scandal-associated Democrats proves less than compelling.
Jer
Jer, if the Guv had had an
December 16, 2007 - 23:47 ET by MikeBJer, if the Guv had had an (R) after his name, it would have been all over the place. "Republican" would have appeared nearly every other word. The Democrats made a big deal about the Republicans' "culture of corruption" during the 2006 elections.
Yes, the locals would have known that the Guv was a Democrat, but, do you think the readers of the LA Times knew that? It has been shown on this site that time after time, if the perp is a Democrat the party affiliation, if it is mentioned at all, appears near the end of the article, whereas if the perp is a Republican it is mentioned in the first sentence and repeatedly throughout the article.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
MikeB...I disagree. I
December 17, 2007 - 00:17 ET by JerMikeB...I disagree.
I check the links, track them back and review related articles in connection with this particular media bias claim frequently raised at NB, and, frankly, on a number occasions, found there is much less to the story than meets the eye.
I'm not saying a failure to identify Democrats never occurs...just that I haven't seen convincing evidence of a discernible and deliberate pattern of media conduct designed to expose Republican wrongdoings while concealing that of Democrats.
The "culture of corruption" was directed toward the Republican Congress--a major issue in a national mid-term election--just as it was against a Democratic Congress in 1994 [when it also received prominent attention by the MSM.]
Jer
That's why we need to see a study...
December 17, 2007 - 06:41 ET by sarcasmoIdeally it would enslave the interns of both the MRC and Media Matters on the same project. This kind of bias should, after all, be relatively-easy to define and detect, and the involvement of "both sides" (we'll ignore leaving-out libertarians, for now, and assume the MRC has an occasional libertarian intern) should make the study more trustworthy.
Such cooperation, while uncomfortable for both sides' interns, would be both useful and unprecedented. It would allow on the spot fact-checking by the competing groups of intern-slaves, for one thing. But the inability of CNN to do the journalism I just easily did below & put a "(D. OH)" after a porker's name does say something to "our" side. What you think is important, and for your side to believe our claims that this bias exists it's apparently gonna take a study. I'm confident of the results, so bring it on, MM & MRC!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
I'm with you, sarc, bring
December 17, 2007 - 09:57 ET by JerI'm with you, sarc, bring it on, indeed...a thorough and definitive study by MM & MRC or any one or more of the various media watchdog/research organizations would be welcome.
The possibility of a calculated media effort to identify Republicans but not Democrats is something I would never summarily and uniformly reject, and I hope you and others recognize by now that although--as a Democrat--I may express contrarian views and possess a healthy dose of skepticism, I'm certainly no implacable partisan with my mind already made up regarding bias issues raised at NB, including this one. I'm willing to be convinced....I haven't so far. [As I've said before, your argument charging a pervasive anti-libertarian bias is much more sustainable.]
There have been periodic assertions on progressive/liberal sites regarding perceived instances of "deliberate" negative misidentifications of Republicans as Democrats [particularly on Fox News...occasionally on CNN], and that it occurred often enough to constitute an orchestrated pattern of behavior. I'm just as unpersuaded by that claim as I am by the one made here.
Jer
I still see non-identifcation as a problem
December 17, 2007 - 10:04 ET by sarcasmoEven if, as you think, it happens equally to both sides, it certainly discriminates against Greens, New Alliance, Libertarians, Constitution-Party, etc. because we both know that the news media for EVERY instance of even-suspected criminality involving the non-duopoly parties WILL ALWAYS report party-affiliation PROMINENTLY.
That's bias in my book, even if it now might somewhat-benefit me as a Republican. I didn't stop being right about that aspect of media-bias when I changed parties. The benefits of a joint study, if it can somehow be negotiated, would be that the other side wouldn't be able to complain about and discount the results they all claim-not-to-fear.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
What gives?
December 16, 2007 - 23:50 ET by Dave PierreWhat gives?
1. Jer: Readers "could have simply checked the editorial accompanying the Tribune article ..."
Uh ... There is no editorial that "accompan[ies]" the Tribune article. I even spent some time clicking around the Trib site (which would mean that it didn't "accompany" anything). I eventually had to go to Google to find the editorial you were talking about. Did you just make this up ... or what?
2. And as I illustrated in my post, major stories from major city newspapers are often picked up by other newspapers. Therefore, readers in other cities may not know what party the governor belongs to.
3. The Tribune article is also available worldwide on the web (Google etc.). Not all readers are in Illinois.
4. You say the evidence is "less than compelling," yet you completely ignored the Kansas City example.
It's fine to comment negatively on a post, but to do so dishonestly is not cool at all.
Dave, I might be mistaken
December 17, 2007 - 00:42 ET by JerDave, I might be mistaken on occasion, but I would never make a deliberately dishonest comment.
Before my earlier post, after clicking your Tribune link several times and being repeatedly taken to the LAT article instead, I went directly to the Trib website and found the subject article and related articles of the same date, including the editorial which I referenced. [Both were written on Dec. 14--thus the reason I said "accompanying editorial]. If they in fact appeared on different days, then I stand corrected, but I think my assumption was reasonable.]
Finally, I'm not alleging dishonesty on anyone's part. It's just that while there may be some anecdotal evidence, I am, thus far, not buying the anti-Republican media conspiracy--at least with respect to this issue.
Jer
The Trib probably didn't
December 16, 2007 - 22:31 ET by MudhenThe Trib probably didn't mention it because the Republicans forfeited major office here with the last Governor, George Ryan who’s currently in prison where he belongs. Odds are, Blagojevich will join him in a few years. He's an become the poster boy for why we should have the ability to recall elected officials in Illinois
They really don't have to mention parties when it’s a Democrat controlled state from one end to the other. They only question is who are we going to turn to when the Dem's start going to jail? Even the Greens got 10% in the last election for Gov.
A 3rd party with an articulate, knowledgeable candidate stands a good chance for Governor in 2008 in Illinois.
A 3rd party with an articulate, knowledgeable candidate stands a good chance for Govenor in 2008 in Illinois.
Why am I not surprised???
December 17, 2007 - 00:09 ET by charlietexasWhy am I not surprised??? The MSM does this all the time. we need to
keep up the pressure on the liberal media. No wonder their
ratings and readers are going away. They just dont get it.
Did the Tri blame Bush for the scandal yet??
CNN "Headline News" also had one yesterday
December 17, 2007 - 06:34 ET by sarcasmoApparently Ralph Regula (D. OH) has found a way to employ the unemployable, namely his wife and daughter. It's an "earmark" called the "First Ladies' Museum." I spent the entire segment trying to figure out whether "Regula" was the name of a porker-Democrat or a porker-Republican. Couldn't tell from what CNN let us peons know, and all my beer-addled memory would tell me about "Regula" was the "porker-" part. What a boondoggle! I guess I can look at the bright side, CNN covered pork-spending at-all...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
More proof of the
December 17, 2007 - 13:24 ET by mattmMore proof of the objectivity of the MSM....