Name That Party: AP Fails to Tag Nearly Indicted John Edwards as a Dem (Updates: AP Tags and Pulls, Then Restores)
UPDATE: As seen here, the very earliest AP reports appear to have identified Edwards as a Democrat (the age of the item may not correspond with when the AP subscriber actually received it), but the latest ones, including this item found at AP's home site (as of 12:59 p.m.), do not. UPDATE 2: A mixed bag -- The 6:55 p.m. report from the same AP reporters (pic here) notes that Edwards was the "2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee," and waits until Paragraph 4 to note that the possible indictment stems from the 2007-2008 campaign.
In their 11:29 a.m. report (saved here in case it gets updated, and for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) on the apparently imminent indictment of 2004 and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, Associated Press reporters Mike Baker and Gary D. Robertson did not identify Edwards as a Democrat, nor did they identify any of his campaign associates (e.g., Andrew Young, Fred Baron) as Democrats. No form of the word "Democrat" appears in the report as it was posted at 11:29 a.m.
Here are the first seven paragraphs of the AP pair's effort:
AP source: Edwards could be indicted within days
Federal prosecutors have completed a wide-ranging investigation into John Edwards' political dealings and could indict the two-time presidential candidate within days, a person familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
Edwards could still strike a plea deal to avoid an indictment, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the case's sensitivity.
Federal investigators have been probing Edwards for two more than years. Their interest has spanned much of Edwards' political career, looking into issues such as whether he did anything improper during his time in the U.S. Senate. And it looked into a network of organizations connected to Edwards, including a nonprofit, political action committees and a so-called 527 political group.
Much of the investigation, however, focused on money that eventually went to keep mistress Rielle Hunter in hiding along with former campaign aide Andrew Young, who claimed paternity of Hunter's child in 2007 so that Edwards could continue his White House campaign without the affair tarnishing his reputation. Investigators have been looking at whether those funds should have been considered campaign donations since they arguably aided his presidential bid.
Justice Department officials in Washington had been reviewing the case in recent weeks.
The U.S. attorney in Raleigh declined to comment Wednesday. An Edwards spokeswoman did not immediately return a message seeking comment, though his attorneys have said they are confident the former North Carolina senator did not violate campaign finance laws.
Young has said that Edwards agreed in the middle of 2007 to solicit money directly from Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, the 100-year-old widow of banking heir Paul Mellon. Young has said he received hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks from Mellon, some of them hidden in boxes of chocolate.
A few hours earlier, though it did take them a while, and they did so a bit cryptically, ABC News at least tagged Edwards as a Democrat in their report's fifth paragraph when they referred to "his pursuit of the 2008 Democratic nomination for president." They could easily have done so in the report's first sentence ("The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards for alleged violations of campaign laws while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned").
Baker and Robertson have blatantly and inarguably violated of AP's stylebook standard (cited here and on several other occasions) for identification of party affiliation, which states:
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.
For the excuse-makers: Don't try the "everybody knows" garbage around here. Even if that's true now, part of the reason for failing to tag Edwards as a Dem would appear to be the hope that as time goes by, he'll be forgotten, and future researchers into political crime and corruption won't cite him as a Democratic Party, example because they won't find him in related Internet searches.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
"For the excuse-makers: Don't
Submitted by lotr on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:32pm.
"For the excuse-makers: Don't try the 'everybody knows' garbage around here."
Good points, all; however, I'll also point out that NB deals with liberal media bias. If Republicans, by and large, receive similar treatment, then all's well and good. Instead, the receive precisely the opposite treatment.
HS
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:41pm.
What are your thoughts on this article?
Schwarzenegger ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:36pm.
... is functionally a AGW-believing statist when it matters.
Besides, see the Update, and prove that Arnold got tagged first, and then had the tag pulled. When you do, you might have an argument. Until you do, you don't.
Tom
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:44pm.
Did you not write this article based on the absence of the Democrat tag prior to learning it had been in an earlier version of the story? My post was in response to your story before you updated it.
So I caught a break ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:46pm.
... I guess because, like O'Bama, I'm part Irish. :-->
Just as my posts must adapt to changing circumstances, and my response to you was similarly influenced, so must your response to my question take the most current facts on the ground into account.
So put your research hat on, and find that Schwarzenegger was similarly whitewashed, and we'll have something to discuss. Until you do, we don't.
Okay Tom
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:16pm.
Can I ask how you ended up so lucky? Where did your link originate?
Click on the link, but more specifically ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:28pm.
... just before I had to go out on an errand, I was looking at the AP item as carried at Google, and when I saw that it had the word "Democratic" in the first sentence, I initially thought "Oh, I'm going to have to update and note that AP got it right in revision when I get back."
When I came back, I refreshed the item so it would say "2 hours old" instead of 1, and the word "Democratic" disappeared. I then scrambled to find proof somewhere else (as in at the little Google search pic I took) that the story originally had the word "Democratic" in it and subsequently purged it.
So here we are. It's not just a "name that party" problem. It's a "tag and pull" problem. And it has happened before.
Say hi to the folks at MMA for me.
Tag and Pull
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:31pm.
I'll agree with you there. Pathetic and disgraceful, presuming your proof is legit. I'll give you the bennie. Anywho, thanks for your time. Always a pleasure arguing with you.
The Today Show
Submitted by Lee Boggs on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:30pm.
The Today Show also played Name the Party... at least I never heard Democrat. However, in the Mediscare piece following it, I heard Republican several times.
Good Point Irish...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:36pm.
...Another case of a disgraced Democrat in Schwarzenegger getting busted by Maria...
"What are your thoughts on
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:38pm.
"What are your thoughts on this article?"
My thoughts are this is another lame attempt to change the subject. One of the darlings of the democratic party, one who was the VP candidate a short 7 years ago has turned out to be yet another liberal scumbag.
Schwarzenegger was no Republican or conservative, but if it helps you feel better, go for it!
Your attempts are getting more and more ridiculous, rendering you more and more irrelevant.
If one spends about twenty
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:57pm.
If one spends about twenty minutes reviewing the history of the media reporting on the "Edwards Affair" and ensuing stories [once the mainstream journalists recovered from their collective embarrassment at being scooped by the National Enquirer], not only will the extensiveness and depth of the scandal coverage prove overwhelming, but the frequency and prominence of Edwards' party identification will be readily apparent.
With numerous disclosures by the likes of Time to USA Today...from msnbc to the NYT and LA Times...from the Washington Post to the SFGate...from ABC to CBS...from CNN to Reuters etc., there is not a present or future researcher with at least a double-digit IQ who will have a bit of trouble ascertaining John Edwards' status as a Democrat.
Jer
Which completely justifies ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:07pm.
... AP's tag and pull -- NOT!
"Once the mainstream journalists recovered--" ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:20pm.
Always an excuse from you, Jer, for your lib cohorts, whether in the media or in the Democratic Party.
If the National Enquirer had not scooped the slimers of conservatism in the "mainstream" media reference John Edwards, you can rest assured, based on past practices, that they would have let the issue slide.
NB's proves the liberal media bias every single day relative their reluctance and oft times down right refusal to name a Democrat's affiliation in an article.
You remind me of the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike - only in your case you are trying to limit the damaging exposure to the lib media by attempting to paint the lib media as always doing the right thing.
Even if only after being caught out or shamed into doing what is right.
MD
matthew...when did you start mistaking ridiculing conduct
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:00pm.
for excusing it?
Jer
Non sequitur, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:26pm.
--your bit about me mistaking ridiculing conduct for excusing it.
My point was you just had to get in your shot about how the lib media took care of business, but without acknowledging that they were remiss regarding the time frame.
Had they not been scooped by the Enquirer, they likely would have taken much, much longer to cover the story, or even not covered it at all.
You try to make it appear that the media acted perfectly professional and bi-partisan.
Total BS, that.
Then, and now.
The lib media continually fails to initially point out party affiliation unless the guilty person is a Republican or conservative.
You attempt diversion in order to gloss over that fact.
MD
My comment means just was it says, Matthew...and is not intended
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:33pm.
to make anything "appear" beyond the plain meaning of the words themselves.
Now you can twist it and distort it and mangle it so that you can once again stuff my statements into a handy bag which you can then bash with your trusty ideological cudgel. But, as usual, other than the occasional adornment with mildly entertaining rhetorical flourishes, your rejoinders amount to nothing more than pointless flailing.
Jer
I'll twist it and distort it and mangle it, and you, Jer, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:11am.
can stuff it. :o)
A liberal like you, posting on a conservative site, acting all indignant that a conservative would dare use his trusty ideological cudgel.
You're just jealous,Jer; cuz your attempts to "bash" your opponent with liberal featherweight fly-by-night fol-de-rol fails to even register, let alone make a dent.
As usual, my rejoinders allow me to enjoy satisfying amounts of rationalizing repartee out of our esteemed house lib, who, sadly, while striving mightily to garner the gold medal in thread post interplay, only manages once again to verbally fart and fall.
Train harder, Jer
Ya gotta get serious, now.
MD