Well, isn't THIS interesting.
In a December post (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I reviewed ABC's online "The Faces of Political Scandal" slideshow, which featured mini-profiles of 14 politicians in recent years who have been tainted by scandal and/or crime.
At the time, I noted that:
Of the 14 politicians identified, seven are Democrats and seven are Republicans. Five of the seven GOP members are identified as such, while only two of the seven Democrats were flagged. The montage also has a couple of surprising factual errors.
Well, glory be, sometime in the past couple of months, ABC has made changes to the montage. Now each profile except for Bill Clinton's (which is excusable) identifies the politician's party. Additionally, two factual errors at the original profiles have been corrected. The year of Clinton's Lewinsky scandal which ultimately led to his acts of perjury and impeachment has been changed from 1995 to 1998, and an incorrect statement that sex-scandalized Florida Democratic Congressman Tim Mahoney had conceded to GOP opponent Tom Rooney before Election Day last year has been removed.
Here's the lineup of the "Faces of Political Scandal," and how their status changed:
- Then-current and now-former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich -- Party was originally not ID'd; now the "Democrat" label is in the second sentence.
- Then-current and now-former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens -- GOP affiliation immediately ID'd in both instances.
- New York Congressman Charles Rangel -- Democratic Party immediately ID'd immediately ID'd both times.
- Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick -- Democratic Party affiliation originally not ID'd; now the "Democrat" label is in the second sentence.
- Former Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney -- Democratic Party affiliation originally not ID'd. Now it is immediately ("D-Fla.").
- Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer -- Democratic Party affiliation originally not ID'd. Now "the Democrat's involvement in a prostitution ring" is in the first sentence.
- Former New York Congressman Vito Fossella -- GOP affiliation was in the third sentence; now it's in the first "R-N.Y,").
- Former Ohio GOP Congressman Bob Ney -- GOP affiliation ID'd immediately in both instances.
- Former Florida Congressman Mark Foley -- GOP affiliation ID'd immediately in both instances.
- Former California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- GOP affiliation originally not identified; now it is ("R-Calif.").
- Then-current and now-former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson -- Democratic Party affiliation ID'd immediately in both cases.
- Soon to be former Idaho Senator Larry Craig -- GOP affiliation ID'd in first sentence in both cases.
- Former Illinois Governor George Ryan -- GOP affiliation not originally ID'd; now "the Republican" affiliation is at the start of the second sentence.
- Former Democratic President Bill Clinton -- No party ID'd in either instance. No problem there.
ABC may have issued a correction notice relating to all of this, but I could not find it.
It is nice that ABC has made these fixes, but it would be nicer to know when they did them, and what motivated them.
Regardless, two inconvenient facts remain:
- While the "Faces of Political Scandal" montage was fresh, it was imbalanced in its party ID weighting for no defensible reason (if there was a defensible reason, ABC wouldn't have made the changes they did).
- Unless they stumble across this post or the original, future researchers will look at the montage and understandably, but incorrectly, conclude that ABC got it right from the beginning.
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
Where is Obama's cabinet and/or nominees?
February 20, 2009 - 15:20 ET by LionKingWhere are all Obama's nominees and cabinet members that were scandalized?
How about Senator Burris? Mayor of Baltimore? Alderman in Chicago?
None of that broke ....
February 20, 2009 - 16:06 ET by Tom Blumer.... until after the date of the original montage.
There would indeed be a few potential additions to the montage if done currently.
Scandals of Bill Clinton (Dddddduh)
February 20, 2009 - 15:58 ET by Gary HallOh, his scandals were not limited to the disgraceful act of engaging in sexual acts in the highest office of "we the people" in the land during office hours while supposedly carrying out the official duties of protecting the free world with a very young unpaid volunteer intern working in Washington with the blessings of her paternal parents who must have felt that our elected officials would protect her from such scum; rather, his scandals involved so very much more. One that comes to mind would be these convicted old friends and associates of his, notably those that also spent so much time in our White House with Bill:
Now. For the record, I know for a fact that numerous national journalists, reporters, etc., never knew of this (isn't that amazing?), but at times I wonder if it is possible that most of the rest of hem actually never even knew? Well, they never have spoken of such, nor will they bring it back up. They will never ask Clinton about any of it.
Now. I'm not questioning the obvious usual MO of the press, in which they certainly knew, but decide that they aren't going to share it with the viewer or reader; rather, I wondering if their curiosity is so low, when it comes to crimes of Democrats, that they couldn't even bring themselves to read the wire reports when they came out?
Just curious - I yam. (;~/ gary
I know, Gary ....
February 20, 2009 - 16:05 ET by Tom Blumer.... this is a site for posts, not books. :-->
..a movie would be nice (;~>
February 20, 2009 - 16:08 ET by Gary Hall..a movie would be nice (;~> gary
I think it's perfectly
February 20, 2009 - 16:29 ET by danebramageI think it's perfectly obvious that the widespread practice of omitting the party affiliation of Democrats is either A) deliberate, or B) due to an unreflective assumption on the part of journalists and editors that Democrats are all "good" and "normal" politicians, while Republicans are exceptionally vile and beyond the pale (kind of like the way Nazis always have to be prominently identified as such, while the political sympathies of their opposition is rarely mentioned). However, given that there exist style books to guide journalists in just these areas, I can only conclude that it's not accidental in fact, but perfectly conscious and willful.
Which means that ABC's action in this case is more than likely explained by the fact that it has become so obvious (and well-documented) that there's dirty dealing going on that they're afraid of a Rathergate type of situation blowing up on them.
Biased and incompetent AP needs NewsBusters
February 20, 2009 - 23:29 ET by needleI think your description of how the media types regard Democrats and Republicans is pretty good, perhaps slightly overdrawn, but only slightly.
On account of that point, however, it is apparent that the AP folks are incapable of being reflective enough of their biased perception of the world to imagine how they might be courting anything remotely similar to Rathergate. (They are probably at somewhat of a loss to fully comprehend the ethical breaches in Rathergate.) What is remarkable, after all this time, is that anyone actually went back and tidied things up. The fact that they tidied things up almost exactly in accordance with NewsBuster’s posting strongly suggests to me where the “inspiration” came from.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.