Today (Sunday, January 21, 2007), the Los Angeles Times toasted Sen. Hillary Clinton's entrance into the 2008 race. Her announcement of a presidential exploratory committee was met with a whopping 2,050-word, front-page article ("Clinton joins 2008 race for president") (see image).
As we reported on Wednesday (here), the Times celebrated Sen. Obama's announcement of an exploratory committee with front-page treatment, accompanying photos, and a generous 1,469 words.
But how has the Times been treating similar announcements by Republicans?
On Nov. 14, 2006, when the Times reported the exploratory committee formed by Rudy Giuliani, it was buried on p. A26 with a puny 353 words (here).
Sen. John McCain's exploratory committee? Nov. 16, 2006, p. A19, 993 words (here).
Gov. Mitt Romney and his exploratory committee? Jan. 4, 2007, p. A7, 581 words (here).
Sen. Sam Brownback? On Dec. 5, 2006, after Brownback announced his exploratory committee: p. A20 and 833 words (here). Brownback officially enters the race: Jan. 21, 2007, p. A21 and 414 words (here).
In other words, no Republican contender has gotten nearly the coverage that Democrats have gotten. [Note: Democrat John Edwards was not given the front-page treatment by the Times. However, on Dec. 29, 2006, the paper showered him with 1,246 words on p. A14 with an accompanying photo and "infobox" highlighting his personal and career information. And if you currently read the article still at the Times website (here), the paper generously provides an AP video of Edwards making his announcement in New Orleans.]
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
Also ... In 2005, Sen. Hillary Clinton scored a perfect 100 rating from the ADA and NARAL. By most (if not all) measures, that would place her squarely in the "liberal" camp. Even a well-known left-wing site has tagged her as "progressive," a label usually reserved for those who are especially committed to liberal causes (see image). However, in the 2000+-word Times article today, neither the word "liberal" nor "progressive" appear anywhere in the piece! Even her well-known liberal financiers and supporters who are cited avoid any such label.
Although Hillary's liberal credentials are very well established, the Times avoids tagging her as such. (Emphasis mine:)
Once a devotee of conservative icon Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Wellesley College and Yale Law School graduate drifted to the left by the early 1970s, working as a House Judiciary committee staffer during the Watergate investigation of President Nixon.
And near the closing graphs:
In the Senate, her delicate dance on Iraq helped her cut a more moderate profile, which could help her in a general election contest. But it remains a potential problem for Democratic primary voters.
Although she has opposed Bush's troop buildup, she has not set a timetable for withdrawal and remained silent as other Democratic lawmakers have repudiated their vote for the invasion of Iraq.
Dissent from the left has created an opening for some of her rivals, but her commanding lead in fundraising and fame positions her to overcome such criticism.
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
[P.S. - A search of the word "liberal" in the Times archive covering from Jan. 1, 2001 to Jan. 21, 2007 returns 8882 results. The word "conservative" in the same time period returns 15,147 results. Over the same time period: "Ultra-liberal" gets a measly 36 returns; "ultra-conservative" gets 202! "Left-wing": 1888; "right-wing": 3225. Hmmm ...]
*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*
***UPDATE (Mon. Jan. 22, 2007)***: Although the paper admits he's only polling at a paltry 1%, the Times gives generous space to Democrat Bill Richardson on his announcement: 1,115 words on the top of page A8, with a photo (here).
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Dave...great investigative wo
January 22, 2007 - 00:45 ET by bigtimerDave...great investigative work, I sincerely mean that...but really and truly are we supposed to expect less from the leftist fish-wrap?
I think not.
An agenda is an agenda is an agenda.
.....as long is it is the enemy within.
They have the power as long as the true patriots of this country stay silent and weak kneed, do not unite and take over the air-waves in repetition as the left does.....united as one.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
I'm betting the LAT didn't
January 22, 2007 - 05:46 ET by sarcasmoI'm betting the LAT didn't mention this apparently-top-secret Republican candidate's "exploratory" bid at all...Good thing there's an internet for me to singlehandedly bust obvious mediawide antilibertarian bias on a conservative anti-media-bias site, eh? And, as I plainly-showed in the Smither-race bias busting I did last election right-here on NB, the LA Times is perfectly-content to keep the name of an on-the-ballot candidate a secret from their readers if said candidate comes from a politically-incorrect party, while effectively giving an unpaid political ad for the write-in Republican and the eventual-winner Democrat.
JMR
I think it is safe to say tha
January 22, 2007 - 06:28 ET byI think it is safe to say that even if someone decent runs on the Republican side of the mess, that the Times will not ever recognize that person as much as a Democrat.
Is it their advertisers that cause them to be so pro-Dem? Is it that bad politicians who have no morals like Bill Clinton sell news? (Let's face it, having a Muslim or an umm.. well, ya know, in office, would up news sales.) Or, could it simply be that they themselves (MSM) have so much wickedness in their own lives, that they need people in power who are like themselves so that they feel normal?
hmm... Well, whatever the case may be, let's hope that between the two of them Hillary wins in the primaries because she sure as heck will not win the presidential election. (Non-party voters do not have a loyalty to Hillary and most are not ready for a woman in office.) But if Obama wins the primaries, he could very well get into office.
So, who will the Dems vote to run for them? They will vote Hillary in for their nominee. If there is one group that is even more loyal than the Republicans, it is the Democrats, and they have waited six years to hear Hillary say she would run.
I predict a land-slide in the primaries for Hillary, then a 60/40 in the elections for president, with a Republican winning.
Debra...
www.InformingChristians.com
Ps: Did anyone notice in that news clip that Dave has on this article something quite odd about Hillary? She looked remarkably female. She actually spoke and looked, even smiled much like Shirley Jones. Do you think they are giving her speech lessons and hormone therapy?
This is why the Left favors
January 22, 2007 - 07:00 ET by motherbeltThis is why the Left favors the new Campaign Finance Reform requirements. Everyone else has to play by restrictive rules, but there are NO restrictions on what a newspaper can write. They can act as unofficial 527's for their favorite candidates with no limits, and very little opposition.
I wonder how many Republica
January 22, 2007 - 08:37 ET by Jack BauerI wonder how many Republican Angelenos buy the LATimes?
When you have dead tree media sales dropping faster than Schwarzenkennedy's Republican credentials, I've never understood the business model that says,
"sure, go ahead and alienate large numbers of your potential audience by printing lefty OPINION on the front page where readers expect to see NEWS.
But that's their problem in a leftwing nut shell. They just can't stop passing off opinion as news.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Jack,I don't think there are
January 22, 2007 - 09:29 ET by paperheadJack,
I don't think there are any Republicans still buying the LAT and if they are still losing circulation, that means the number of libs is also dropping or least care enough to still buy the rag. I'm all for campaign fianance reform but if it involves the media making up the difference on what the dems would lose, no thanks.
The L-Gay Times ... would a p
January 22, 2007 - 10:42 ET by jonathanandersonThe L-Gay Times ... would a psycho-liberal lies-paper do anything OTHER than short-stroke Homocrats and back-end Republicans?
Thank God there was no liberal media during the Revolutionary War, WWI, or WWII.
Did she drift to the left or
January 22, 2007 - 16:32 ET by ucDid she drift to the left or just jump on board her husband's ambitions and rededicate herself to all his wishes? What are her established credentials other than flip-flopping in brief time in Senate? I saw her as a full partner and wonder now how she isn't termlimited. Where you just being a loyal wife of old to you husband's wishes those eight years or were you a directing queen bee? How many samsonite bags are needed for your history? And how should we reconcile "Blood Sport" with your Iraq positions? Who is the real you, and isn't all of William Jefferson Clinton termlimited and not just part of WJC?
Did she drift to the left or
January 22, 2007 - 16:33 ET by ucDid she drift to the left or just jump on board her husband's ambitions and rededicate herself to all his wishes? What are her established credentials other than flip-flopping in brief time in Senate? I saw her as a full partner and wonder now how she isn't termlimited. Where you just being a loyal wife of old to you husband's wishes those eight years or were you a directing queen bee? How many samsonite bags are needed for your history? And how should we reconcile "Blood Sport" with your Iraq positions? Who is the real you, and isn't all of William Jefferson Clinton termlimited and not just part of WJC?