The Associated Press's Ed White used almost 700 words in his story (link is dynamic; story in form found at 5:04 p.m. is also here) about the latest developments relating to Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit, and failed to name his party affiliation even once.
Even beyond that, though he did tell readers that Kilpatrick faces a criminal trial for perjury, misconduct, and obstruction of justice, White failed to note that calls for Kilpatrick's resignation, which began in earnest with City Council's 7-1 vote in March, continue to mount.
According to White's report, Kilpatrick:
- Allegedly "....berated and attacked (investigators) as they tried to serve a subpoena to a friend." One investigator says that the mayor "grabbed him and threw him into (a) fellow investigator ....."
- That investigator, Brian White, "testified he had X-rays taken at a hospital and might have suffered a slight hip fracture."
- Was ordered by a judge "to pay $7,500 and undergo random drug testing."
- Though he is the mayor of Michigan's largest city, is still "no longer permitted any personal travel outside Michigan. He also cannot travel on business outside the state without the court's approval."
- Tried to shame a black investigator for working with a white colleague, saying that "You should be ashamed of yourself. Why are you a part of this?" and "You shouldn't even be riding in a car with a guy named White."
AP's 2000 Stylebook (I would be grateful if anyone with access to a more recent version could e-mail me a link) says the following about reporting party affiliation:
Let relevance be the guide in determining whether to include a political figure’s party affiliation in a story.
Party affiliation is pointless in some stories, such as an account of a governor accepting a button from a poster child.
It will occur naturally in many political stories.
For stories between these extremes, include party affiliation if readers need it for understanding or are likely to be curious about what it is.
I would suggest that the "relevance" and "curiosity" tests are slam dunks.
It's not like all reporters are allergic to reporting the party affiliation of Democratic malfeasants. This Newark Star-Ledger story from this morning by Josh Margolin and Robert Schwaneberg ("Assemblyman Neil Cohen under child porn investigation") names the Democratic Party affiliation of two of Cohen's colleagues in the first paragraph, and identifies Cohen as "D-Union" in the second. The word "Democrat" or "Democratic" actually appears five times, and the "D" label three times.
So what's Ed White's excuse?
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
Excuse?
July 25, 2008 - 19:00 ET by Reaver"So what's Ed White's excuse?"
He works for the disassociated press. That's his excuse Tom.
I just figured ....
July 25, 2008 - 19:58 ET by Tom Blumer.... someone else besides me should answer that. :-->
Name that party
July 25, 2008 - 21:18 ET by Kenny BunkportThe whole "name that party" thing has become so well known in the conservative blogosphere, that it's a running joke. The MSM doesn't acknowledge it. I think they believe the accusation will die out in the right-wing domain.
I believe that at some point it's going to spill out through the grapevine and chats around the water cooler. Eventually, even the average Joe is going to want to investigate the rumor himself. It won't be hard to confirm. Soon everyone will start playing "name that party". The MSM loses another bit of credibility.
The media is just keeps handing out the nails to pound into their own coffin.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
The nut didn't fall far from the tree.
July 25, 2008 - 22:27 ET by LibraryLadyHis mother is a character too!
Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick,
She's involved with ACORN.
The nut Part 2
July 26, 2008 - 17:41 ET by ReaverMight as well include his father too.
"Wiretaps of mayor's dad sent FBI on probe."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807180398
Not a single (D) in the piece even though they mention almost half a dozen democrats.
it wasn't only the associated press it was the detnews too
July 26, 2008 - 11:13 ET by lunaticcringeradioit's systemic in nature how the media will not report a liberals party affiliation. see the detroit news links also and you can't find democrat or (D) next to anyones name, or even a lil d. it's the liberal medias tactic to perpetuate ignorance to it's lazy sheep it feeds this crap too.
see link
http://www.detnews.c...
by the way this is the reporter who penned the story
You can reach Paul Egan at (313) 222-2069 or pegan@detnews.com. Detroit News Staff Writer Mark Hicks contributed to this report.
should we all combine efforts and start to hound the news agencies who post stories like this who purposefully omit the party affiliation of liberals.
lunaticcringeradio
By labeling only
July 26, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Kenny BunkportBy labeling only Republicans, the MSM can perpetuate the myth that the GOP is the party of corruption. After all, haven't we read about all those scandals by Republicans. I can't really remember reading about Democrats in scandals.
If the media were honest enough to use the word Democrat in a scandal story as often as they do Republican, the general public would perceive the corruption as being about equal. By pounding in the Republican tag while ignoring the Democrat label, the media gives the perception that Republicans are more corrupt. People can't help but be mislead by this subtle propaganda.
Liberal pundits preach it as fact and it's hard to argue because the perception IS out there. So basically, the media creates a lie, filters the news to reinforce the lie, creates a perception by repeating the lie, then uses the perception created by the lie as proof that the lie is the truth.
Another example of inexcusable bias by the MSM. It's lying without telling lies.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Non-partisian
July 26, 2008 - 14:11 ET by truffxhurtzAlthough we all know the Mayor of Detroit and the Detroit City Council are all Democrats, we have non-partisan elections so maybe that's the reason they don't report they're Democrats. Do they identify known Republicans as Republicans who were elected in non-partisan elections?
If this were an isolated
July 26, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Kenny BunkportIf this were an isolated incident I might be persuaded by your argument. However, you don't have to watch the news or read the paper for more than a week before you pick up that the GOP story will begin with, "Republican Congressman Joe Blow...", while the Democrat story will not mention party affiliation until paragraphs into the story - if they mention it at all.
Here's the "Name That Party" challenge. Watch and read the news for one month. Note at what point they tell you party affiliation. I'm willing to bet my paycheck that you will see a pattern of immediate identification for Republicans and belated identification for Democrats in scandal stories.
Don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. I'm that sure that you can't miss the pattern once you're aware of it.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Re: If this were isolated
July 26, 2008 - 21:56 ET by truffxhurtzYou referenced federal politicians, i'm talking about local politicians where elections aren't partisan. When you run for Mayor of Detroit you don't declare a party. There was a similar story on here concerning councilwoman Conyers. We all know she's a Democrat but when you run for Detroit City Council you don't declare a party. I know there is media bias out there but the point i'm trying to make is maybe the reason they don't print which party they're from is because the elections they ran in weren't partisan. If a person is a Republican mayor but the elections are non-partisan does the AP print his party?
Re: Cincinnati's City Council ....
July 27, 2008 - 00:05 ET by Tom BlumerFrom Wiki, confirming what I thought -- "Although the election officially is non-partisan, the three major parties (Democratic, Republican, and Charterite) endorse candidates in the race."
I think this makes the situation analogous to Detroit.
Because of the strong third party (Charter), local news reports rarely fail to ID the party in a story about a councilman. I haven't looked recently to see if the one remaining local paper, the Cincinnati Enquirer, is slipping on this, but my expectation is that they are not.
Unless there's a green or black-extremist party that has gained traction, Detroit is probably a totally one-party town, so you could argue that you're in an "everybody knows" situation. That probably does justify not naming a person's party in some instances, but not this one.
The DetNews or AP shouldn't be let off the hook, esp on a story like this. In the Internet age, they should always be operating with the expectation that such a story might be picked up nationally. In this case, Drudge has been linking to the DetNews story for at least the past 24 hours. That's about as national as you can get. Readers nationwide ought to have been told Kilpatrick's party, and weren't.
Re Re: Cincinnati's city council
July 27, 2008 - 11:29 ET by truffxhurtzConsidering this would make national news yes they should've made his party known. Believe it or not but the Detroit News is the conservative paper in Detroit and the Free Press is the liberal paper. I never really paid attention to them naming parties when they report on local politicians but i'll start. And yes, Detroit is the most liberal and second most dangerous city in America.
http://www.govpro.co...
http://www.morganqui...
Party Affliliation
July 28, 2008 - 11:14 ET by Kenny BunkportOne could argue whether party affiliation matters in any story that doesn't involve a political crime. After all civil crimes, such as assault or indecency, are not carried out under the auspices of the office or party. In these cases, naming the party serves no real purpose. The fact that Larry Craig was a Republican doesn't have any bearing on the indecency charge. And the same could be said for assault charges against Kilpatrick. But.....
The media has long decided that this information is germane in all criminal acts. In spite of the fact that Kilpatrick did not run as a Democrat, his biography identifies him as a Democrat. He gets support in other ways from the Democratic party. His party should be included in the story as it would be in any other criminal case.
I think the non-partison aspect of the election is moot. He is a Democrat. The party information is as pertinent to this story as any other where a non-political crime has been committed.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Election Not-Withstanding
August 9, 2008 - 00:02 ET by Rusty WeissDespite the election being non-partisan, I think the fact that this man was a speaker for the Democratic Convention in 2000 and 2004 makes him a notable member of the party.
Additionally, the AP printed this article about his pending mayoral election in 2005 which states:
Being a Democrat apparently was newsworthy in this instance.
Also, they have the following National Briefing which states:
It would seem that an earing scandal also warrants a mention of party affiliation. But jail time? Not so much.
One more example is this article in 2001 which adds:
There are more examples of this to be found. It being a non-partisan election does not in any way warrant the omission of the word 'Democrat' from Kilpatricks run-ins with the law.