In this AP story which I spotted on FoxNews.com, the wire's reporter Chet Brokaw sums up the story of South Dakota state senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, who's mired in allegations of improper behavior with an 18-year-old male page. You can read the story for all the details if you're interested, but what I wanted to point out was the party affiliation of the Senator. Care to guess? If you said "Democrat", you're right. And where does that information appear? Why, in the very last sentence, of course.
I was unable to learn anything about Chet Brokaw, but given the last name, and given that Tom Brokaw is a native of, and still has ties to, South Dakota, is Chet a relative of the former NBC anchorman? Does anyone know?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I don't think that being a re
January 25, 2007 - 07:24 ET by hs29fanI don't think that being a relative to Tom Brokaw is important, unless there is a full blown cover-up of the info. The real problem is the supression of information in the story. Just my two pennies.
Poor Liberal, he's educated beyond his intelligence
I think the important point h
January 25, 2007 - 08:02 ET by NL207I think the important point here is: this story, even though it contains identical content to the Mark Foley story, is not being given anywhere near the same level of coverage as the Foley case, therefore it is liberal bias hard at work in the news. Like Foley, we have improper behavior and misuse of his office. Like Foley, the alleged victim was 18 at the time of the offense, therefore there IS NO LEGAL OFFENSE. Like Foley, the only offense is a breach of trust of the office. Now we will see if like Foley, this man resigns when exposed.
I agree NL. The dems told us
January 25, 2007 - 09:34 ET by danboI agree NL. The dems told us they would be the most ethical congress in history.
With this and Pelosi exempting A Samoa from the min wage. I have serious questions. I hope they prove me wrong.
What would you expect from a media who had "Bush lied about his days in the guard." In cut and paste. But when Broddrick speaks out. The story got one showing. After they sat on it for how long. And then asserted it was no longer valid as the statutes of limitations had expired.
My hunch is this story is dead in the water.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Just curiosity on my part
January 25, 2007 - 10:02 ET by nkviking75I didn't say the Brokaw angle was important. I was merely curious.
Here's some transcript for comment
January 25, 2007 - 11:03 ET by SportPoliticsHere's some transcript for comment, ( I believe from the senate inquiry) apparently there was a phonecall afterwards, and it appears during the time in question, to me the guy was caught trying to take advantage when the page woke up. It sure looks like GUILTY to me. I'm not sure any other conclusion is possible. Transcript from the "court"
[ “On page 12 … Austin asks you if you think he’s making this up,” McMahon said. “You say, ‘I’m not sure you’re making it up.’
“Why don’t you just say, yeah you’re making it up, nothing happened.”
Sutton says he wanted them to talk to a priest.
“Then why didn’t you just say nothing happened, let’s talk to a priest,” said McMahon.
“Because I was stunned,” said Sutton.
“As someone would be if they’d just been sexually assaulted?” asked McMahon.
“Yes,” said Sutton.
“What about, ‘If you were awake and you say I touched you, then I must have,’” asked McMahon.
“When anyone receives a phone call like this … I think random thoughts go through your mind … and I said what I said,” Sutton said.
“Yes, you did,” responded McMahon. “Don’t you think a normal reaction would be outrage?”
Maybe if it came from a total stranger, said Sutton, but not from somone he thought of as a son.
“You say you feel terrible and you’re sorry again, right?” asks McMahon. “What are you apologizing for if you didn’t do anything?”
Because I’m a caring person, said Sutton.
McMahon picks apart the conversation - such as the part in which Sutton says he “did something offensive.”
“Something he thought I did that was offensive,” said Sutton.
“Austin tells you he’s not lying. Do you see that?” asks McMahon. “You were telling him you don’t remember then you’re telling him you’re a light sleeper. And you tell him he’s not a person who would lie. … Right after you tell him you don’t believe he would lie you tell him, ‘Then all I have to believe is that I did it and I don’t know what I’m going to do now.’”
“I said what I said,” Sutton replied.
“Twice you say that if you say I did it, I did it … that I have to believe I did it,” said McMahon. “And you didn’t ever say, “Austin, I didn’t do it.” ]
Golly, call me crazy, but that's a guilty person trying to escape.
[ McMahon(interrogator) continues, almost line by line.
“You say, ‘What do you want me to do?’” says McMahon. “You suggest that you go talk to Father Fox. After that you say, ‘If there’s a problem, if I have something wrong with me, I want to fix it.
“Why would you say that if you didn’t do anything.”]
Well, because that's a way of saying he's really not like that, it was an unexpected crotch grab that he did out of the blue, and he's not even sure if it was him....LOL - the "sudden discovery of gay tendencies thing - that may or may not be present".
I'm just thankful they at l
January 25, 2007 - 08:26 ET by sarcasmoI'm just thankful they at least deigned to mention it into the last sentence, since I've seen PLENTY of scandal-stories involving "major" parties with 0 party-identification. Needless to say, that doesn't happen with media-coverage of non-major parties...
JMR
I have seen stories with no m
January 25, 2007 - 08:41 ET by Indiana JoeI have seen stories with no mention of Democrat affiliation until late, if at all. I have never, in my recollection, seen an unflattering MSM story about a Republican without that fact pointed out at the first mention of the person's name, if not sooner.
This relative frequency of
January 25, 2007 - 08:50 ET by sarcasmoThis relative frequency of party non-identification might be a fruitful subject for the MRC to study. I assume everyone here agrees that in cases of political scandal there should always be at least simple party identification by initial ("R. FL," "D. NY," etc.) and there aren't any media-defenders that say it's ok to have 0-mentions, but if not, chime in right now. Please! :)
JMR
They put it in the headline.&
January 25, 2007 - 09:37 ET by danboThey put it in the headline.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
nkvking75,Don't forget to con
January 25, 2007 - 08:42 ET by fosstennkvking75,
Don't forget to contrast the articles with the opposite situation, for effect.
Contrast the treatment of Sutton in the article with that of Foley, whose party affiliation was printed in the FIRST sentence in the Sept 30 article by the NYTimes. Not too difficult to find, NYT archives for Foley stories were on the first page of Google.
It is also noteworthy that the New York Times hasn't bothered to comment on this (non)story. Wonder why.
For Fossten
January 25, 2007 - 11:55 ET by nkviking75Perhaps I should have mentioned it, but I guess I reasoned that that point would be obvious to everyone here. It seems to me that in the vast majority of politically related stories of any type, the party affiliation of any politician is usually mentioned almost as if it's part of the pol's name.
Why don't we wait before we
January 25, 2007 - 09:09 ET by slzWhy don't we wait before we jump to judgement. The only thing that is known right now, is that there was a bed shared, other than that it is a case of he said-he said. Jumping to conclusions is what we have with the Duke case.
Use a little common sense. For whatever the reason they were in a room together, his parents knew it and okayed it. How stupid with someone have to be to touch the young adult man?
If I am wrong, then I will be the first to apologize. What I am not willing to do is judge a man and ruin his life (again the Duke case as an example), no matter what the party affiliate, with only one source, and most especially when the source is the AP. We all know how accurate their reporters are. A wonderful example of the AP reporting is the Jamil Hussein story that Michele Malkin has been following like a pit bull.
Just my two cents.
Regards...
SLZ
slz,Doesn't matter. The emp
January 25, 2007 - 09:37 ET by fosstenslz,
Doesn't matter. The emphasis on the article is the contrast of how party affiliation is presented, if at all. That's where the bias comes in. Not to mention the lack of interest any time it's a Democrat.
It does matter. But I unde
January 25, 2007 - 09:44 ET by slzIt does matter. But I understand your point, and agree with it.
Regards...
SLZ
Here SLZ takem a look at the pics
January 25, 2007 - 10:04 ET by SportPoliticsHere SLZ take a look at the pics, and tell me what you think...lol
It looks a mighty thin chance it didn't happen.
Oh boy, the sleaze gets deeper SLZ
January 25, 2007 - 10:15 ET by SportPoliticsOh boy, the sleaze gets deeper SLZ. The democrats and the MSM have done a wonderful job keeping all this under the radar...wow.
jan 19th 07 ArgusLeader . com
[ An 18-year-old high school student working as a Senate page told law enforcement authorities in February that Sutton made sexual advances and inappropriately touched him in a motel where the page was staying with Sutton.
Sutton has not talked publicly about the allegations since they were first made public in October, but his lawyers have said he did nothing wrong.
Attorney General Larry Long has said a criminal investigation is continuing, but no criminal charges have been filed. In response to a subpoena issued by the Legislature, Long provided the Senate with records of the criminal investigation.
After the page’s father contacted Senate officials in October, the Senate scheduled a special session for November to consider the allegations.
The special session was canceled when Sutton resigned from his 2005-2006 term.
However, Sutton was re-elected in November to a new term and was sworn into office with other senators last week.]
ROFLMAO - THE DEPTHS OF DEPRAVITY FOR THE DEMS AGAIN.
Hey, sorry SLZ, but the guy definitely has the look of a closeteer, no doubt about it. GUILTY.
No rush to judgment here
January 25, 2007 - 10:08 ET by nkviking75I agree that there MAY be an innocent explanation. However, given the political atmosphere of the times, it was not a risk worth taking for any politician. I posted this because the party affiliation of the senator was buried in the last sentence, not to call for the guy to be lynched.
Read just above nkviking
January 25, 2007 - 10:17 ET by SportPoliticsRead just above nkviking, the story is a lot deeper than the msm omitting the dem label until the last sentence, and keeping it all buried completely during the Foley scandal and the national elections.
GUILTY.
ps - It's against the rules for the state senators there to share a hotel room with a page. I guess republicans are just fools and laydown all their cards on the opposition.
Can you EVER REMOTELY imagine that Foley would be considered innocent if he shared a hotel room BED with a page male - who accused him of grabbin the crotch - and went to the COPS with the complaint ? HELLO ?
IS ANYBODY HOME IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ?
No, I do NOT want to hear this CRAP that republicans hold judgement until the court case comes. BS. Wow, it's no wonder the republicans took a hit at the midterm. Holy freakin moses.
HEY- NEWS FLASH - you republican party people are NOT a judge or a jury, and no matter what your OPINION is on the matter, you cannot SUBVERT justice by actually stating it. You are not a judge and jury !
Gosh, I bet a lot of you think this democrat never grabbed the kids sack, after hokeying up in a hotel room with him, and hopping in bed, and the kid running to the cops and reporting it ! Wow, beat me for going out on a limb here !
Wow, sorry my standards aren't up to par. Gosh I'm an idiot.
My purpose in posting
January 25, 2007 - 10:25 ET by nkviking75I repeat, my purpose in bringing this up was to point out that the Democrat angle was buried. Of course this story is important, and of course the guy ought to get the book thrown at him if he's proven guilty. Keep in mind that while the Foley scandal was front and center, the MSM neglected to remind us of the sordid escapades of several nationally known Democrats like Barney Frank and Gerry Studds. It's not surprising that they'd downplay the Sutton story as well, especially given that he's a state senator from a very small state.
Well nkviking, the republicans get what they deserve
January 25, 2007 - 10:38 ET by SportPoliticsWell nkviking, the republicans get what they deserve. It just amazes me actually, that somehow this sainted ideation that holding back an opinion until some very well could be full of crap in it's outcome court case ( that may never come BTW), is considered honorable or even sane in the political arena.
( not just you or even specifically you nkviking or you at all - you deserve credit for bringing this whole matter to my attention - so this isn't "at you". )
Do you people who think you're such fine upstanding innocent until proven guilty type players - do you feel so good that all of you prepared to jump on that wait until the court case decision here, are also willing to flat out declare OJ innocent ?
Ok, so if not, what the heck is the matter, cause it ain't something wrong with me. We're far past the day when we could reliably claim the law will do it's proper work and justice will be the result. Way past that my friends, and especially concerning high profile players, of which state senators certainly have a claim to.
Yeah, great job excusing the press when it's from " a small state". I'd say not very populous state, but the state isn't small, and I'm sure Rhode Island was in the press at election time wasn't it. My God, slicing one's own party throat is so popular.
Ok, whatever, yeah the democrat is innocent because of course all reasonable people wait for the infallible case verdict ( case which doesn't exist at this point from what I've read).
I'm just so amazed, just so thoroughly amazed. Let's see, the guy looks like he'd hit that way, acts like it by the pictures, breaks the rules by having the page in the hotel room with him, gets in the same bed with the page, the page goes to the cops and reports him grabbing the crotch, and yet, gosh, Michael Jackson WAS GUILTY AS SIN BEFORE HE HIT THE COURTROOM, but this democrat will recieve the benefit of the doubt, since republicans decided to be DESTROYED in the last elective round with the Foley scandal.
I really have to say, suicide is one lousy way to go.
Sport, you misread my intent
January 25, 2007 - 10:52 ET by nkviking75Hey SP, you seem to hint that I want to brush this story under the rug. I do not. I said I'm not surprised that the MSM would downplay a story of a state senator in a tiny (population-wise) state. I didn't say it was right. We all have a pretty good idea of how the media works. I think writing it off as a local story is par for the course. Again, and it's the last time I'll repeat it, I was pointing out that an AP reporter buried the fact that Sutton was a Dem.
I don't think Sutton should have done what he did. I think the whole situation smells. But perhaps old habits kicked in. As someone who has written a few news stories at radio stations, I tried to maintain the usual standard of "innocent until proven guilty". When writing as a journalist, I always try to do that, even if I think the accused is guilty as sin. It's called "fairness".
Hey it's not you personally nkviking
January 25, 2007 - 11:35 ET by SportPoliticsHey it's not you personally nkviking, it's the whole national republican party, who passed up a golden opportunity. I guess it's just some entrenched insanity, one of those things that makes anything said by any republican player the RULE OF LAW and the VERDICT in some fantasy legal proceeding.
I mean how many times am I going to hear this CRAP, innocent until proven guilty ? Ok, for a writer, a journalist, who doesn't want to be sued, fine.
But, Im' really sick at how the limits are exceeded to the point of insanity. Then at other times, Michael Jackson is guilty and is a child molester, Scott Peterson slaughtered his wife ( long before the trial concluded ) - and of course, slick willie COMMITTED PERJURY ( something I've seen here said more than once ).
Hey, my opinion doesn't lock the guy up- take him off the streets, or REMOVE HIS constitutional rights, nor does it make me incorrect or debase in making an assessment before any court case reaches some verdict that may or may not be correct, or bought and paid for - just like my opinion.
I'm really, really sick of this, but am convinced it was the argument that kept republicans from using this story as a buffer against the Foley accusations. Yeah, that's what I think, and I think it's looney.
In fact, I highly doubt a single republican here would give Foley the same benefit of the doubt if the same thing were reported about him, and the page went to the authorities, and reported what this page did. Boy, I'd hear the sullen guilty verdicts - HERE- so quickly my head would spin.
Well, Mr. Sport, I guess yo
January 25, 2007 - 10:40 ET by slzWell, Mr. Sport, I guess you don't believe in our rule of law, innocent until proven guilty. You want to lynch someone because of their looks, how stereotypical is that? I, sir/madame, prefer to wait for more facts before I judge the man.
Also, the 'kid' he was not a kid, he was an adult. He was 18. The same age as many of our soldiers. So, in reality, IF the congressman did touch the young adult man, he maybe guilty ethically, but he did not break the law.
Regards...
SLZ
You are waiting for facts SLZ?
January 25, 2007 - 11:23 ET by SportPoliticsYou are waiting for facts SLZ? Well, there all posted now for you. Enjoy the links, and I'd be glad to see your "opinion" on wether or not the guy grabbed the kids crotch.
As far as the guys looks, I guess you just don't have an eye for the queer guy. Yep, no way of telling by how they look, how they talk, or how they act. SURE. Tell me that about Foley, as well, after you saw how he acts.
WHATEVER.
And, as far as this frankly INSANE idea that has been taken way too far that "someone is innocent until proven guilty", that applies to them actually BEING LOCKED UP BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES FOR A CRIME, and has nothing to do with MY OPINION, or YOUR OPINION, on wether or not they did so and such a thing in question.
OK ? Got it ? Capiche ?
I mean, it's pretty bad anymore this CRAP that someone can't have an opinion. I guess I didn't declare him a child molester and demand he register in that states database, did I ?......
IN OTHER WORDS, the whole ideation is a BUNCH OF CRAP, and I'm sick of hearing it, thanks. I guess it's real famous to stretch it to some insane limit, by what CONSTITUTIONAL RULE OF LAW there buddy ?
NONE whatsoever.
Hey, sorry, I'm sure you're a great poster SLZ, really, but my OPINION on this piece of crap democrat HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WETHER OR NOT HE IS GUUILTY OR INNOCENT IN A COURT OF LAW, NOR WETHER OR NOT THE COPS OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES PICK HIM UP AND VIOLATE HIS RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN.
da** !
Could Chet Brokaw have been n
January 25, 2007 - 10:46 ET by Mark FinkelsteinCould Chet Brokaw have been named after Tom's predecessor in the NBC chair, Chet Brinkley?
Chet
January 25, 2007 - 10:54 ET by nkviking75I think you are confusing Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, who co-anchored NBC News decades ago. And I had the same thought.
viking,Going to be interestin
January 25, 2007 - 16:18 ET by bigtimerviking,
Going to be interesting to see how they take care of their own next Wed. is it not? I hope you keep us updated if it available anywhere that is, thanks for the info.
The silence from the media, no uproar no nothing, no call for him to resign... the silence from the republicans as usual, they do not know how o fight back, which greatly disappoints me....oh my.
This is the first I have heard of this. (I too am curious about any connection to Tom Brokaw, whom I detest.)
Btw the newscasts and local papers rarely let anyone know if it someone with a "D" on behind their name, maybe as an afterthought, or the next day, if their party is not mentioned at all, and it implies wrong doing of any kind, it is omitted or just barely mentioned as it was at the end of the story here.
Silence is golden ...if you are a democrat.
It works for them.
Hypocrites all.
The first most of us have heard of Sutton
January 25, 2007 - 18:32 ET by nkviking75I suspect it's the first most of us outside South Dakota have heard about it. The only reason I heard of it is because I was skimming over the FoxNews.com site and saw a reference to South Dakota. I have family there, so when SD is mentioned on a national news site, I get curious. I can't say that I'm surprised that it's still a local story. It will only go national if sites like this or perhaps a radio talk show or Fox News decides to follow up.
I started this item in the forum, and the NB powers that be decided to elevate it to the main page. Perhaps this is the first of much national exposure of the latest Democrat scandal.
viking...AS an aside, I am by
January 26, 2007 - 00:21 ET by bigtimerviking...
AS an aside, I am by no means a whiz on the PC in any way shape or form, but I tried searching every way but sideways about the Brokaw/Chet relationship...I am sure did too...
I got zilch.
Please make sure and keep us informed, I am so curious and thank you again! (I know you will, that was silly to say)
Job well done, thank goodness for NB's and people like you!
For more info
January 25, 2007 - 23:50 ET by nkviking75The Dan Sutton case is being heard in a disciplinary hearing in the South Dakota Senate. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader has extensive ongoing coverage, including video and blogs. This story may not be getting national play, but it's major in South Dakota.
Sen. Sutton is a tricky guy
January 26, 2007 - 00:05 ET by nkviking75I was just reminded in a search on FoxNews.com that Senator Dan Sutton had actually resigned from the SD Senate just after the election. But it's not that simple. Sutton resigned from his current term, which was ending. But he returned to the Senate in January, when the new term, to which he was elected in November, began. He did this to avoid a hearing at a special session in late November. Sutton also filed several court challenges to the authority of the senate to discipline him.
Sounds pretty Clintonesque to me.
Two days before this story wa
January 31, 2007 - 21:39 ET by DemonhunterTwo days before this story was posted at Foxnews.com, they ran a less detailed version which failed to ID Sutton as a Democrat at all. Here: http://www.foxnews.c...
Today they ran another AP story about corruption by state senator John Celona of Rhode Island, and again, there is no mention of his party affiliation. So, it is even worse than you thought.
http://www.foxnews.c...
If it's not the Crusades, it's the cartoons