Update at bottom of post: Williams responds (18:24 EDT)
I have to hand it to the AP this time. They actually noted the political party affiliation of another Democrat in legal hot water. So did CNN.com and Reuters.
But for some reason, MSNBC's Pete Williams left out the party affiliation of Louisiana's Rep. William Jefferson (D) in this March 31 item at the First Read blog:
In something of a surprise, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear an appeal involving the FBI's unprecedented search of the Capitol Hill offices of Congressman William Jefferson.
A federal appeals court ruled that the FBI wrongly used its own agents look through the material seized to determine what might be covered by congressional privilege. This is a considerable victory for Jefferson, largely validating his objections to the search and giving him certain bragging rights. But prosecutors claim they have sufficient evidence independent of the search. The cash in his freezer, for example, was found well before Jefferson's offices were searched.
I found it odd that Williams left out Jefferson's party affiliation as he noted last Thursday on the First Read blog that Puerto Rico's indicted governor is an Obama superdelegate.
For the NewsBusters archive of Associated Press bias, check here.
Photo of Rep. Jefferson via uspolitics.about.com.
Update (18:24 EDT): NBC correspondent Pete Williams replied by e-mail explaining why the Democratic affiliation was not noted in the blog post. His note was gracious and gives a bit of insight into how the First Read blog works:
You were right to take me to task for not noting Rep. Jefferson's party affiliation. May I offer a word of explanation? I posted that item you saw to an internal system, which alerts us all to news developments around the world. An editor took the item and posted it on the web, which is fine and fair game, but I didn't write it for external consumption and instead used a bit of shorthand. Had I known it would be posted to the wider world, I'd have included more background about the case, including party affiliation.
I'll try to watch my p's and q's -- and R's and D's for that matter.Thanks for reading.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Rep is short for Republican.
March 31, 2008 - 14:35 ET by upcountrywaterDin'nt this guy have a bit part in the movie "LITTLE NICKY"?
<wake up>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
They didn't actually do it
March 31, 2008 - 21:15 ET by motherbeltThey didn't actually do it this time, but it's not unheard of for them to use the "Rep" connotation; I've often thought it was a deliberate attempt to make people think a Democrat was a Republican.
When Rush used to talk about this guy, he would always deliberately refer to him as "William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana" every single time his name came up in the story.
No surprise here regarding
March 31, 2008 - 15:41 ET by bigtimerNo surprise here regarding msnbc...
Despicable nonetheless..this whole criminality with democrat Jefferson is...I heard this whole thing is put on hold indefinitely....never ever would happen if this was a republican...nor would the party affiliation be omitted purposely, it would be repeated early and often in every report...of course the msm would of already driven him out of office long ago.
Some things never change.
RNC and others stays silent.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt, I agree, see just
March 31, 2008 - 21:21 ET by motherbeltbt, I agree, see just above; that's why Rush would deliberately use the whole phrase every time. If this were a Republican, they wouldn't even care about his name; he would just be referred to as "the Louisiana Republican....was indicted, etc...
I only disagree with you one one thing: if it were a Republican, the Republicans would have run him out...oh,wait, probably under pressure from the Dems and the MSM....so I guess you're right on that.
Well, this is nothing new.
March 31, 2008 - 18:07 ET by Indiana JoeWell, this is nothing new. We're pretty much used to this by now, aren't we? Sad, but true.
What I find really offensive is that this POS was caught with, what, $90,000 in his freezer and he's still in office??? Who puts legitimate money in their freezer?
Of course the stated his party affliation.
March 31, 2008 - 20:02 ET by Matthew StierIn this article, he is seen the victor over the Bush administration, and thus the party affiliation would be a "positive" attribution.
Stand-up guy
March 31, 2008 - 21:12 ET by nkviking75Kudo's to Pete Williams for being a stand-up guy (see update).
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Stand up guy???
March 31, 2008 - 22:56 ET by m4ster chiefI was a newspaper reporter...granted there's a difference, but journalistic standards, both professional and ethical (a shame the two are bifurcated nowadays) calls for labeling any elected official higher than dogcatcher with his state (or district, etc.) and his political affiliation (party.) I don't care where he's posting it, or whether he's writing it on the ****house wall. But times have changed, and so has the personal ethical standards of these "journalists." The professional and ethical STANDARDS haven't changed...just the writer's personal morals and ethics, and willingness to meet the standards.
On the other hand, the writer's editor is even more complicit in the violation because he or she has the ability, the authority, and the obligation to rectify the "mistake" but fails to do so. But we know that if the writer/journalist indicated a strong desire to adhere to the standards learned in Journalism 101, he wouldn't be working at MSNBC.
This is not a stand up guy...he's a journalistic whore.
Just my opinion...
I am an atypical white person.
JOurnalistic Whore, My Azz
April 1, 2008 - 00:00 ET by BeresfordNot a surprise that you are no longer a newspaper reporter, m4ster chief. The job requires a few smarts these days.
If you re-read Pete Williams's response, the item he wrote up was intended for INTERNAL use. The people he was corresponding with are undoubtedly smarter than you are and they know the political party of the miscreant involved.
The journalistic whore line? WTF does that come from? You sound more than a little bitter about your lot in life.
Yes, the MSNBC editor could have and should have thrown in a "(D)" after Congressman Jefferson's name. Unfortunately, not everyone is as perfect as you are.
I sincerely hope that you ARE an atypical white person. Otherwise, I would be worried about our race.
I am SHOCKED...
April 1, 2008 - 17:34 ET by m4ster chief...SHOCKED, I say, to discover that somebody disagrees with my opinion. Gosh, that's never happened before. You said:
"Yes, the MSNBC editor could have and should have thrown in a "(D)" after Congressman Jefferson's name. Unfortunately, not everyone is as perfect as you are."
I'm glad you agree with me that the editor should have adhered to good journalistic standards and corrected the writer's "mistake." That in itself shows there is hope for you.
And yes, I actually was kind of perfect as a newspaper reporter/staff writer/columnist. I can't think of even ONE TIME my editor had to correct my grammar, speling, or the factual content of my submissions. If you don't believe me I can give you my former editor's name, address, newspaper, e-mail address, telephone number, etc. But we'll have to put some money on it, just to make it interesting, maybe humiliate you a wee bit, and to teach you a lesson about prejudging us atypical white people.
As for the label "journalistic whore," that is my STATED OPINION, to which I am entitled, by the way, of his journalistic ethics. You said that his piece was for "internal use." But what if it was read by a new intern who never heard the name William Jefferson? That's why I wrote that a good writer will label the officeholder. By the way, since you seem to know a lot about professional writing...I mean, you DO, don't you?...can you give me a legitimate reference that indicates I am wrong in my thinking?
He might be a nice guy, a good husband, wonderful father...but if he sells his journalistic integrity for money, he is the same as a person who sells their sexual virtue for money. And, he is making a statement about himself and his personal and professional values.
Y'all have a nice day now, Beresford...and calm down, son, y'all gonna have a heart attack!
Yes, Beresford...I am an atypical white person, but not in the way you took it. Heh-heh.
Chief, looks to me like you
April 1, 2008 - 17:53 ET by bassndudeChief, looks to me like you stepped on Beresford's toes there. Could it be his attack of your IQ makes him feel less stupid than he obviously is? His public school education is showing.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ha ha!
April 1, 2008 - 18:41 ET by m4ster chiefBassndude...he shouldn't leave his toes sticking out in front of me.
I am a typical white person, except when I ain't.
Clinton appointed appeals court
April 1, 2008 - 12:40 ET by djm159Funny how a Clinton appointed appeals court finds the search of a felon's office illegal. Now we know where the bodies are, in the Congressional hierarchy, above the law offices.
If Jefferson were a republican he would have been tossed out with a 19-count indictment, but since he is a democrat and came before a Clinton-appointed court who tossed the evidence he will be promoted by Democrats which is always the way. Look at Kennedy, a murderer who sits on a very powerful committee.
Jefferson is a crook and a felon like most democrats but as usual is protected by the other crooked felonius democrats. I guess the old adage is correct "there is honor among thieves."