There is no need to play the parlor game, "What party is this person a member of?" with this Associated Press story by Lara Jakes Jordan (Feb. 23 Note: The original link from AP's hosted.ap.org site was changed; the story link now goes to Jordan's story carried at SignOnSanDiego.com. Jordan's report has been saved for future reference at BizzyBlog's host for fair use and discussion purposes):
Congressman Charged in Land Deal
Republican Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted Friday on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other matters in an Arizona land swap scam that allegedly helped him collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs.
A 26-page federal indictment unsealed in Tucson, Ariz., accuses Renzi and two former business partners of embezzlement and conspiring to promote the sale of land that buyers could swap for property owned by the federal government.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓..... Renzi is the Arizona chairman for GOP presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain's campaign. McCain seemed surprised when asked in Indianapolis for his reaction to the indictment, choosing his words carefully, shaking his head and speaking slowly.
The instant party identification of an indicted politician would be perfectly acceptable, if Ms. Jordan were consistent. But she is not.
As NewsBusters' Lynn Davidson noted last year, Jordan's story on the indictment of Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) made no direct reference to his party affiliation (the standalone undated print version is here with Lara Jakes's byline; the indicated authors of the same story dated June 4, 2007 are Lara Jakes Jordan and Matthew Barakat).
Jordan instead required curious readers to make it to the ninth paragraph, and then to infer that Jefferson must be a member of the same party as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
Louisiana congressman William Jefferson received more than $500,000 in bribes and sought millions more in nearly a dozen separate schemes to enrich himself by using his office to broker business deals in Africa, according to a federal indictment Monday.
The charges came almost two years after investigators raided Jefferson's home in Washington and found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer.
The indictment lists 16 counts, including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. He faces a possible maximum sentence of 235 years.
He is the first U.S. official to face charges under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits corporate bribery overseas.
Jefferson, through his lawyer, claimed innocence. He will be arraigned Friday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.
..... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to push this week for Jefferson to be stripped of his seat on the Small Business Committee, according to a leadership aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been announced.
"If these charges are proven true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "Democrats are committed to upholding a high ethical standard and eliminating corruption and unethical behavior from the Congress."
One would hope that identifying an alleged perpetrator's party affiliation early on, regardless of the party involved, will become a habit for Ms. Jordan. Excuse me if I doubt this will happen.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Pathetic
February 22, 2008 - 14:29 ET by YahooWatcherAbsolutely pathetic. Liberal media hacks at their finest.
Only Republicans are Corrupt
February 22, 2008 - 14:37 ET by allanfThis from Fox News:
I rememeber long ago that Bob Torricelli of New Jersey was under suspicion. But he was never indicted.
It is hard to believe that this is just a one party problem. Why do Republicans seem to be exclusively targeted?
Because more Dem Attorney Generals and prosecutors are
February 22, 2008 - 14:46 ET by Dee Bunkpolitically motivated. Republicans don't go after Dems to the same degree and they will go after their own.
Dems rarely go after their own no matter how aggregous the offense and will go to the point of fabrication agains a political enemy.
Pres. Bush should of
February 22, 2008 - 14:56 ET by bigtimerPres. Bush should of cleaned out the whole Justice dept. and the Att. Gen.'s when he first came in office, just like the Clinton's did, now we have been left with all the Clintonistas that remained that have been working tirelessly with the dem. party to do as much damage to our side of the aisle as possible.
If anyone thinks for one minute there aren't just as many dems that are getting away with things that can be or are illegal they are smoking something funny.
Agree BT - I think Bush was too naive and thought they would
February 22, 2008 - 15:09 ET by Dee Bunkbe professionals. Live and learn.
It's absolutely crazy how Dems believe that being a Dem makes someone unable to be criminal. What a perfect place for criminals to hide!
Because Dems cover up Dems
February 22, 2008 - 14:51 ET by MaximusBraveheartDue to convenient morals, Dems cover for Dems. Not unlike how SOME cops would cover up the bad of a FEW other bad cops. Funny how Bush is bashed as being political for firing the DAs who were using their power to go after Reps only. Well if Reps turn in Reps and Dems only go after Reps; a whole lot more Reps will be caught and testified against. Just like Clinton having a plethora of very bad closets ready to spill out; the media manages to over look everything. There is no way in hades that a Rep candidate could get away with possible links to murders, drugs, rape, intimidation threats, payoffs, etc. yet still manage to run for president. MSM is a total mind numbing joke.
Good analogy MaxBrave - cops protect cops like dems protect dems
February 22, 2008 - 15:12 ET by Dee Bunkand the mob protects it's family (mob members are notoriously Democrats). Party loyalty or mob family loyalty trump everything else. How outside people are treated makes no difference.
<sarc> I'm sorry to have to
February 22, 2008 - 15:13 ET by motherbelt<sarc> I'm sorry to have to repeat this, but apparently you guys are not paying attention, or you wouldn't be surprised at this discrepancy. AP has a specific policy for identifying party affiliation: it's only mentioned if it's relevant to the story.
If it's a Republican, it's relevant to the story; if it's a Democrat, it's not.
Got that now? OK, good!
I'd be interested in Jer's comments
February 22, 2008 - 15:14 ET by sarcasmoOn this one. It might be enough to change a mind. I'd also love it if the distorter-journalist in question came by and tried to explain this one to us. Seems like an open & shut case of bias to me, but those make for the best heming & hawing from media-defenders.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc...just saw this item
February 22, 2008 - 18:27 ET by Jersarc...just saw this item about a half-hour ago and have been doing a little research. Bottom line: This is another "nothing-burger" story from NB's most persistently pursued, but ultimately pointless wild goose chase.
What is most striking from a quick google search is just how consistently and prominently Jefferson's party affiliation is revealed by and across the entire spectra of media outlets--right, left and center--including the AP.
I'll be gone for awhile...back later tonite.
Jer
Oh well...
February 22, 2008 - 18:31 ET by sarcasmoHope springs eternal. Maybe the Time-headline-bias one'll get ya? It's pretty persuasive...
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
The MSM won't even label
February 22, 2008 - 15:25 ET by mattmThe MSM won't even label themselves with the (D), so why should they label Dems in trouble with it?
"....story..." By Lara Lakes Jordan (D) Washington D.C.
excellent point mattm!
February 22, 2008 - 15:28 ET by Dee Bunkexcellent point mattm!
Will the William Jefferson Corruption Charges Fade Way
February 22, 2008 - 15:33 ET by allanfLooks like the William Jefferson trial will be delayed until a new Adminstration takes office. If a Democrat is elected President, does any believe that the prosecution will just "fade away".
allanf... This is
February 22, 2008 - 15:44 ET by bigtimerallanf...
This is infuriating...I posted a link about this case last week somewhere...the msm of course pays no attention to a congress-critter who is a dem. who is facing a possibility of 235 years in prison...nope not important...we all know what would happen if this had been reversed...
Infuriating indeed, I didn't see where in the article that it said how long it was delayed for but of course you are probably right, they are just waiting for a dem Pres.
Thanks for the update.
Meanwhile over in Democrat Land..
February 22, 2008 - 16:27 ET by mastersofdeceitAn actual conviction.
http://www.foxnews.c...
Howdy mod... the msm is
February 22, 2008 - 16:33 ET by bigtimerHowdy mod...
the msm is mighty quite about his now aren't they? LOL! As if we would expect anything different.
I had forgot about the case so I am glad you filled me in on the update...what a whiz-bang he is by the way...he rejects a plea deal with no jail time and repay the 20,000 for a possible 7 year sentence...to top that off he soaks just his feet in cold water...brainless twit, thats a dem for you...any dems here don't take offense, I meant it is a whole.
Why would the wife of a
February 22, 2008 - 16:35 ET by bacher468Why would the wife of a Democratic party operative be consistent? Read what she did to Rick Santorum 5 years ago:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32268
msm bias really the main point?
February 22, 2008 - 21:04 ET by shawn228Yeah the msm did not give as much press the William Jefferson. The thing is I have not heard one person condemn this Lawmaker for being indicted on fraud, extortion and money laundering, the focus is exclusively on the Liberal hypocricy.
Isn't the fact the he is indicted enough for at least one person to focus on that aspect of the story?
Rocky and Apollo BFF!!