Kurtz Sees Switchers' Media Double Standard: Shelby's a Deserter, Specter Exposes GOP

Photo of Tim Graham.

In his Monday “Media Notes” column, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz addressed Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democrats and explored whether the media has a double standard in covering party-switchers: “little attention was devoted to this question: Was this a betrayal of the voters who elected Specter?”

Correspondent Carl Cannon, on AOL's new PoliticsDaily site, says conservatives are right in complaining that much of the media have "a double standard regarding party-switchers....When Republicans morph into Democrats, we tend to act like they finally saw the light, and quote them ad nauseam about how the Republican Party has gotten too narrow, etc., etc." But when a Democrat joins the GOP, "we concentrate on the tactical advantage to the party switcher."

Cannon recalled conservative disgust over the media celebration of departing Republican Jim Jeffords in 2001. Kurtz’s review of media coverage found a real lack of questioning Specter’s disloyalty to his party:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Most journalists assumed the role of handicappers, accepting as a given that this is the way the game is played. So what if Specter had promised to serve six years as a Republican? So what if Specter had told Newsweek less than three weeks earlier that "I'm a Republican and I'm going to run in the Republican primary and on the Republican ticket"? He was acting to save his skin; no further explanation necessary.

This value-neutral reporting was reflected in the headlines: "Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats" (New York Times). "Specter Gives Dems a Boost in Stifling Dissent" (USA Today). "Specter Leaves GOP, Shifting Senate Balance" (Washington Post). Not a hint that he had done anything untoward.

Kurtz expanded on his review of the news on his Monday online chat:

I went over the news stories and network reports and in no case was the propriety of Specter's decision to abandon his party of 35 years the focus of the story. In fact, it usually got a paragraph or so; the unspoken assumption was that politicians act in their own self-interest; and the coverage was concerned mainly with the impact on the Senate and the Obama administration. Certainly, pundits on the left or right have beaten up or praised Specter's move, but the reporters have, with few exceptions, not even pointed out that Specter told Newsweek he would remain a Republican as recently as three weeks ago.

In his newspaper piece, Kurtz displayed a contrast with the editorialists at The New York Times, who certainly help set the tone of the national debate:

When it comes to commentators, their analysis often turns on the direction of the defection. In 1994, when Democratic Sen. Richard Shelby switched parties days after the Republicans won control of Congress, a New York Times editorial said: "Talk about slipping out of the hills to bayonet the wounded! . . . His desertion to the victorious Republicans this week was hardly a huge surprise." But when Jim Jeffords flipped control of the Senate to the Democrats by leaving the GOP in 2001, the Times said approvingly that the Vermont lawmaker had given George W. Bush "an embarrassing lesson" for having pulled a "conservative bait-and-switch" on the country.

Kurtz acknowledged that some were willing to concede Specter's cynicism, if not so much his disloyalty:

There were some exceptions among mainstream journalists. Doyle McManus wrote in the Los Angeles Times that Specter was "cheerfully open about the cynicism of his move." Time's Michael Grunwald said the move highlighted his "desperate opportunism." The question surfaced only briefly yesterday on two Sunday shows: CBS's Bob Schieffer asked Specter about Republicans who voted for him and whether "you let them down," while NBC's David Gregory asked about David Broder's criticism, in The Washington Post, of the senator's "willingness to do whatever will best protect and advance the career of Arlen Specter."

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Tactical advantage"

Right on. It is a "tactical advantage" for Specter. He certainly didn't do it out of "principle". Let's all pray his "tactics" fail.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Pot, meet kettle

Nothing new here.  Anything that helps the dhims gets positive coverage.  Anything that helps the Repubs is ridiculed.  

We should not expect anything more from the drive byes. 

you can change parties-however the cash you generated-

in the 1st party must be returned to those who supported you.you must not be rewarded for jumping ship. let the new party support you from scratch. i'm sure those folks in Penn. want their money back. Arlen can not take the money, period.

 

proud to be a  Christian right wing extremist!

Democrats are and have always been,anti American-socialist/Marxist/communist thinkers.

 

 

 

If Leiberman switched to the R's, Tim..

If Leiberman switched to the R's, Tim.. we can only imagine the media's reaction. They'd rip him to shreds.

(;~/ gary

I think, to even it up,

I think, to even it up, Leiberman SHOULD switch to Republican. Then we could have two examples to compare side by side.

MrSnuggles

Yea, the thought crossed my mind the moment I heard the news. I rather doubt that he will, but it would be interesting. And oh, I think that there are plenty of examples from recent swithches to see the comparisons. The media's bias here is no-brainer stuff - as they see it only from how it relates to their party, and their hatred of the R's.

(;'> gary

Send Benedict Arlen a

Send Benedict Arlen a welcome memo.

Hey mattm... Priceless!

Hey mattm...

Priceless! ;-)

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Hi, bt!

Hi, bt! Jonathan Chait in his 04/28/09 The New Republic article, "Unprincipled Hack" provided insight into Arlen Specter when he said, "I think it’s pretty clear that Specter is an unprincipled hack. If his best odds of keeping his Senate seat lay in joining the Communist party, he’d probably do that." Ditto.

Hey Thalpy... I Second

Hey Thalpy...

I Second that!

No doubt about it whatsoever.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

I have come to a new

I have come to a new understanding...anything the msm says, believe the exact opposite! Their hope is that they can make the Republican party irrelevant for generations to come. I'd say they are doing a great job with that goal and the Republicans in power are helping them.

Lieberman too

You also have to look at the treatment of Joe Lieberman by the party and the media for simply endorsing John McCain. Regardless, he stayed in the democratic fold.

It's an editorial, not a

It's an editorial, not a news story. Sorry, are we supposed to be suprised that someone like Kurtz would show liberal bias?

Fool me once...

Once again, Kurtz is dragged

Once again, Kurtz is dragged kicking and screaming into grudgingly admitting that there is something going on in the media, he just can't bear to say clearly and openly that it's liberal bias without a lot of caveats.

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

Souter as well

The Souter/Greenhouse article just posted makes me wonder how a Supreme Court Justice that was thought to be a liberal and found to be a conservative once on the bench would be treated by the liberal media. Probably declared senile.

You mean like Byron

You mean like Byron White?  He was treated just fine.

Jer

Except

Except for the fact that White was never "thought" to be a liberal. Kennedy appointed him knowing his political leaning. But that was a different age, when Supreme Court Justice's were appointed to apply the Constitution and not interpret it.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court

Mostly agree, CobraMan.  I

Mostly agree, CobraMan.  I believe ideology, regrettably, has been a much more significant factor [to conservatives as well as liberals] in recent years than in earlier eras.  Regarding White, I believe it was thought he would be center-left, and once on the bench, he was, or became, more center-right.  Whizzer was an excellent choice in any event.

Jer