Update with YouTube video below.
When is it unimportant to the MSM to inform viewers of a congressman's party affiliation?
At 3:51 P.M. EDT today, CNN aired a "Just In" report on filing of assault and battery charges against California Congressman Bob Filner. Anchor Kyra Phillips said the CNN report was in turn based on a report from its Arlington, VA affiliate, WJLA-TV.
According to the WJLA report:
[T]he Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority have charged Representative Robert Filner of California with assault and battery following an incident at Dulles International Airport Sunday night.
Police say they were called to the baggage claim area around 6 p.m. when a passenger attempted to enter an area authorized for airline employees only.
ABC 7 spoke with several witnesses who say they saw Filner push aside an United Airlines employee and refused to leave the office.
When officers arrived on scene, they found Filner waiting outside the office and informed him the airline employee would be pursuing charges.
Phillips read most of the WJLA report on air. But neither she nor the original WJLA report mentioned that Filner is a Democrat. Update: later WJLA reports do mention Filner's Dem party affiliation.
CNN might argue that this was breaking news. But as I watched the CNN story on Filner, I popped "Rep. Filner" into my Google search engine. As you'll note in the upper-right hand corner of the results page, it took less than 1/4-second to find Filner's party affiliation. Why do I suspect that had Filner been a Republican, CNN would have found time to determine and mention that fact?Update (Ken Shepherd, managing editor): Thanks to TownHallVideos for the video.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
liberalism
August 20, 2007 - 16:38 ET by JDWLib playbook: Have mercy on the criminal
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
MSM
August 20, 2007 - 20:01 ET by ConservativeRexSo this is new?...they've been at it for years...water off a duck's back by now..
ID'ing Dimocrats
August 20, 2007 - 16:39 ET by FaulknerFanMark:
This has gotten pretty transparent by now. If the offending party is a Republican they will ALWAYS be identified as such. If a Dimocrat, never. So you always know.
FF
Exactly!
August 20, 2007 - 17:21 ET by Scout FinchIf party affiliation is mentioned (verbal or print) I know it's a Republican. If the media leaves it out, it's a Democrat. Simple.
Maybe the new take on this
August 20, 2007 - 18:00 ET by TruthMongerMaybe the new take on this should be that criminals are usually Democrats - so why mention the obvious...?
And when the odd Republican occasinally breaks the law (probably really a moderate/democrat anyway) then that is worthy of pointing out?
I just know the MSM can't deliberately be this evil...!
If he had been a Republican
August 20, 2007 - 16:44 ET by MightyMouthIf he had been a Republican not only would CNN have mentioned it , but it would have been the very first word used in the story.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Shades of Cynthia
August 20, 2007 - 16:47 ET by rwesleyShades of Cynthia McKinney......
Typical of a congressmens
August 20, 2007 - 16:49 ET by BDTypical of a congressmens sense of entitlement.
"I am important, you should let me do what I wish."
Oh Mark
August 20, 2007 - 16:57 ET by allanfMark Mark
Don't you realize that party affiliation is only important to a story when it fits in with the "Culture of Corruption" media template.
Technical work about "global warming" is only important when it fits in with the "anthropomorphic global warming" template.
I could go on and on.
Lib Newsreader's Forbidden Word List
August 20, 2007 - 17:14 ET by bulbasaurTo speak the word democrat in that context on live television would be as embarrassing and uncomfortable for an MSM journalist as to speak the word sputum.
Not a surprise
August 20, 2007 - 17:16 ET by Jerry MackCnn policy:
Dims are innocent until proven guilty
Republicans are guilty until proven innocent
Correction on CNN pol - lie - see
August 20, 2007 - 17:42 ET by ThisnThatRepublicans are guilty. Period.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
This is from WJLA's web
August 20, 2007 - 17:19 ET by NoMoreClintonsThis is from WJLA's web site maked "Updated 4:08pm"
". . . have charged Democratic Representative Robert Filner of California . . ."
Maybe they were too lazy to look it up when it first broke but they do have it now. CNN is another story, however.
The Net Text Has Been Corrected
August 20, 2007 - 17:22 ET by BondPlainBondBut that does NOT change what the viewers of CNN heard.
This is what the msm always
August 20, 2007 - 17:26 ET by msh1973This is what the msm always does when it involves a Democrat. If the story was in reverse, Republican would make the headline!
Move along folks ... nothing to see or hear!
August 20, 2007 - 18:01 ET by CrashThey burried the "N-word" and now they're putting D on ice.
CNN, move to the head of the class! Once again, you've given a wonderful example of how to un cover a story. "THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION" is limited only to the (R) team.
A page from WJ's playbook :o)
August 21, 2007 - 07:56 ET by HelenS"...now they're putting D on ice."
A page from William Jefferson's - D. Louisiana - playbook :o)
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
My guess is we soon will be
August 20, 2007 - 18:37 ET by BuffNBoneMy guess is we soon will be hearing that he was "just testing the airline's security procedures."
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
Reminds me of when old Rep.
August 20, 2007 - 19:50 ET by JerryReminds me of when old Rep. Gary Condit was in the news. You almost never saw his party affiliation, he was always referred to as "REP" Condit.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Wouldn't you know
August 20, 2007 - 19:55 ET by Jack BauerWouldn't you know it.
Finally a liberal Democrat who wants to fight... and it's his own side!
It had to be someone else's
August 20, 2007 - 22:55 ET by bigtimerIt had to be someone else's fault if it is a democrat in trouble...
Media just needs time to spin it...but they can say...hey, we reported it, just didn't want to mention the party affiliation until we have our talking points....
....and if they have no talking points later....they just ignore it like it never happened and it is non-important now at all....after-all we reported it, just because we didn't say the party affiliation, doesn't mean a thing.
Unless if course you are someone with an 'R' behind your name.
Hypocrites think nobody can see through there obvious bias....
The idiotic fools.
I fully expect an expose on
August 21, 2007 - 07:13 ET by richflanjI fully expect an expose on the United Airlines employee. How he/she is an eeeeeeevvvvvviiiillllllllll registered Republican who (gasp) goes to church, which naturally makes all this a right-wing conspiracy to destroy the heroic Democrat, yadda, yadda, yadda....
I saw the item on the news
August 21, 2007 - 07:53 ET by HelenSI saw the item on the news last night and this morning and it wasn't until I went to the article that Drudge had linked to that I discovered (not to my surprise) that the gentleman in question was/is a Democrat.
I wonder if they realize that their oh-so-predictable and tiresome ploys are as transparant as if they had actually mentioned it up front? Probably not. They're smart, we're not. No problem.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
}}---> Can't remember
August 21, 2007 - 08:27 ET by Cool ArrowSeems these losers had every report involving Gary Condit so peppered with "R" the column was twice as long as necessary.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Bigots?
August 21, 2007 - 10:36 ET by fosstenQ: How can you tell if someone is a bigot?
A: If they are arguing with a liberal.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.