AP Still Avoids Dem ID of Corrupt PA Judges After Briefly Doing So, Then Dropping, In Feb.

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

CiavarellaAndConahanPAjudgesHere's a particularly noteworthy "Name That Party" follow-up.

In a February post ("AP’s ‘Name That Party’ Twist: Disgraced PA Judges’ Dem Party ID Disappears After Initial Inclusion"; at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I noted that the Associated Press had originally identified the party of two Democratic judges involved in a shocking scheme that pushed thousands of juvenile offenders into detention centers for minor offenses in return for millions in kickbacks.

However, in longer subsequent reports, the AP dropped the party affiliation of Luzerne County Judges Mark Ciavarella (pictured at left) and Michael Conahan.

This evening, in a 5-paragraph story (as of 7:47 p.m.; story could change over time) about a federal judge's refusal to accept plea agreements from the pair, AP Writer MaryClaire Dale stayed consistent with the wire service's see-no-Democrats approach to developments in this grisly story:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

APonPAjudgesStory073109at747pm

Here is the comparison I did in February of what had to have been an earlier report carried on the left at Topix (still there) and the story at MSNBC on the right (still there) to which Topix linked:

APtopixMSNBCcomparison0209

The red box on the left shows where the story as carried at Topix identified the two judges as Democrats; at the time, it was the only place I found the identifying sentence. The red box at the right shows a paragraph that was added later by AP at the MSNBC link; the "Both are Democrats" sentence originally in the previous paragraph is gone. No form of the word "Democrat" appeared in the revised story at MSNBC; that is still true today. The green boxes show that the specific story linked by Topix is indeed the MSNBC story on the right.

Relevant contentions I made back in February still stand (in revised form for the purposes of this post):

  • It is virtually inconceivable that Topix would have gratuitously added "Both are Democrats" on its own. Those words were almost definitely present at MSNBC when Topix did its excerpt.
  • Short of an open admission, the pulled party-affiliation sentence following a brief, demonstrated appearance is probably as convincing a piece of evidence as we’ll ever see that many members of the press, particularly alleged journalists at "The Essential Global News Network," are deliberately playing “Don’t Name That Democrat” whenever they can.

Now Ms. Dale has continued AP's negligent coverage of this particular story, despite clear guidance to the contrary in the wire service's Stylebook (noted near end of text at link):

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."

AP's original instincts back in February were correct. People, especially parents, would of course be curious about the party affiliation of corrupt judges in a horrible case like this. Ciavarella's and Conahan's party is avoiding a deserved stain in this matter, especially given the AP's tendency to rediscover its Stylebook's party-naming rules when Republicans and conservatives are involved in crime, corruption, or scandal. Judging, if you will, on past behavior, it seems very unlikely that the AP would have pulled the Democratic  judges' party affiliation after an initial identification had they been Republicans.

All in all, it's just another day of "Cover For Democrats and Liberals Whenever Possible" in AP-land. This one's just more outrageous than usual.

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


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.

             

              OMG! Say it isn't so! Not a dem.! Can't be. They are so honest & trustworthy.............Do unto Congress before Congress does unto you. How many do you trust?

Tom... Once again, this

Tom...

Once again, this is infuriating.

Topix and msnbc both originally had party affiliation but msnbc changed this to this day ...leaving party omitted.

It's not a 'color me shocked moment', but what the heck can be done with all of this outrageous intentional distortion that keeps continuing with the msm?

Of course it's left without party affiliation hoping the majority of people reading any of this will just assume it's the repub party.

Soros/group has to be smiling...from ear to ear...then again he controls a lot, msnbc is one of his main his babies.

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

This is more a product of the AP feed ....

.... than it is MSNBC in particular. The Feb. post looked at about a half-dozen other sites with the AP story, all of which didn't have the "Both are Democrats" sentence.

The fact that it remained at Topix is a fluke in the sense that it doesn't change when the story feed changes. That is getting more and more rare.

You may have noticed that AP is also attempting to over-control its content even beyond a year ago, claiming that even having a headline and a link gives rise to the right for them to claim money from you:

my column at Pajamas Media

In an ideal world, "somebody" would be capturing every iteration of significant AP stories to catch stuff like this. 

Tom... Hey thanks, you

Tom...

Hey thanks, you made it clearer for me to understand.

Plus the comments at your link were very helpful too.

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