The Los Angeles Times readily admits that Gov. Mitt Romney is "one of three top-tier candidates" for the GOP nomination. However, when Romney made his official announcement of his presidential bid this past week, the paper did not shower the candidate with the same love they did his Democratic counterparts. "Romney officially launches campaign," from the Wednesday, February 14, 2007, edition of the Times, was shuttled to page A17 with a moderate 747 words. Two medium-sized color photos accompanied the piece.
The Times managed to squeeze the word "conservative" into the coverage on Romney three times, noting that the former governor "hewed closely to conservative orthodoxy in his announcement speech."
Yet in several articles on Barack Obama, the Times has made only light mentions of his liberal views. Take the following articles:
"Obama raises stakes for Democrats," Wed. January 17, 2007, page A1, 1,469 words (see an image) ...
"Early on, Obama showed talent for bridging divisions," Sat. Jan. 27, 2007, page A1, 1,204 words (see an image) ...
"Occidental recalls 'Barry' Obama," Mon. Jan. 29, 2007, page B1, 1,456 words (see an image) ...
"It's official: Obama is running for president," Sun. February 11, 2007, page A17 (color photo on page A1), 1,215 words (see an image) ...
That's a whopping 5,344 words, even though I've left out more articles. Yet any references to Obama being "liberal" are practically buried. In fact, in the article reporting Obama's official announcement for president, the word "liberal" doesn't even appear at all! Read for yourself.
We've already reported several times on the LA Times' biased coverage of the 2008 campaign. See here, here, here, here, and here. This is simply more evidence on the table that the Times is clearly providing disparate coverage in favor of Democrats.
HT: Gary Hall
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
hmm... Problem being that Rom
February 16, 2007 - 22:45 ET byhmm... Problem being that Romney is not a true conservative. He is the 'father' of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. And he broke the law in Massachusetts in order to do it too. It went against the Massachusetts Constitution for him to order homosexual marriages in Massachusetts after a collective judicial opinion was handed down that the state legislature should come together to legalize it. Neither a governor or judges can make laws in Massachusetts. I find it interesting that the main-stream-media does not jump on this. It stands to reason that they do not jump on it, because they themselves, on a whole, are advocates of homosexual "marriage."
Forget Romney, Rudy and McCai
February 16, 2007 - 22:48 ET by NeoConfirmedForget Romney, Rudy and McCain.....
Borrowing from Grease, Newt is the word (is the word, is the word...)
loll.... I cannot comment on
February 16, 2007 - 23:01 ET byNeo,
::: laughing ::: (now I am going to have that song in my head all night)...
I cannot comment on Newt, as I have not done my homework on him yet. But, I would like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) to run and win. From what I have read about him, he is a true Conservative. I also spoke to a man over the phone who works for him.
The man who works for Tancredo used to live not far from me and we had a very nice phone chat back in July of 2006 about Tancredo and things here as well. He came across as very honest and quite intelligent. Between what he said about Tom Tancredo and what I have read, I feel very good about Tom Tancredo.
Debra,Tancredo has promise, I
February 16, 2007 - 23:18 ET by NeoConfirmedDebra,
Tancredo has promise, I won't deny you that. But....
Here's the reasons why I think Newt HAS to be the GOP front man in 2008:
1. Name Recognition (Uneducated Voters don't know who Tancredo is)
2. Experience (The man was third in line for the presidency for many years and yielded results)
3. He can articulate his position (I hate to say this, but Clinton was a master of speaking....Newt is the only conservative frontrunner in the league of Bill...i.e. Hillary)
4. Important Point Coming: His dirty laundry was hung out to dry in the media years ago. Old News.
5. Conservative principles (Remember, we all bitched in November that the reason we lost the election is that we drifted from the right, who better than Newt to bring us back where we belong?)
6. Whoever we put up, the MSM will tear down. (Newt can handle the naysayers.)
7. Most important point coming: HE CAN WIN. (No other candidate out there can)
Look at history.....The Dems have a huge advantage going in (Political Momentum) Say what you want, Newt is likable! He will have the ability with the full support of the party to sway those in the middle. Those in the middle will decide the election. Make no mistake about that.
I suggest you visit his website. Learn about him. Listen to him. He makes sense.
I will do go there tonight an
February 16, 2007 - 23:29 ET byI will do go there tonight and read up on him. Has he already announced that he is running?
Not yet but he will. You see,
February 16, 2007 - 23:37 ET by NeoConfirmedNot yet but he will. You see, he's calculating. Imagine a true conservative better at Hillary's games than she is? Starting to get my drift?
Neo... I think that Tom Tanc
February 16, 2007 - 23:51 ET byNeo... I think that Tom Tancredo and Newt would both most-likely agree that the important thing is that we get a true conservative into the White House. Maybe one could be the other's running mate. That sounds like that could be a powerful team. What do you think?
I'm picking up what you're pu
February 17, 2007 - 00:02 ET by NeoConfirmedI'm picking up what you're putting down and I'm not opposed to the ticket.
However, Gingrich would not run on the bottom. It simply wouldn't work that way.
Swing voters are the key. We must have a great communicater. That is GWB's downfall and Newt's strength. In this internet world (I sadly admit), George is the last of a dying breed. You can't stumble over your words with good intentions in your heart.
If Newt is not the nominee, we will lose.
oh wow... get this.I just re
February 17, 2007 - 00:42 ET byoh wow... get this, Neo.
I just received an email from Tom Tecredo's "Team" that has a link to the following story in it:
Rep. Ellison calls the cops to snuff Tancredo’s cigar-by Betsy Rothstein (The Hill)
(Feb 14, WASHINGTON, DC) -Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) believes it is his right as a Muslim to be sworn into Congress with the Quran. But apparently, the freshman lawmaker doesn’t believe it’s Rep. Tom Tancredo’s (R-Colo.) right to smoke a cigar in his congressional office.
Ellison’s office called the Capitol Hill Police on Tancredo last Wednesday night as Tancredo was in his office smoking a cigar. The lawmakers have neighboring offices on the first floor of the Longworth House Office Building.
Tancredo was still stunned a day later. “It’s very bizarre,” said Tancredo, who has never met Ellison. “Seemed to me not a good way to say hello.” http://tancredo1.excelsiorsystems.net/news.php (for the rest of the story.)
Now, mind you, I cannot be around smoke either, but that is the congressman's own office. And if the smoke really was going through to another office, calling the cops was sure not the answer. Oh, Jeepers! ~Debra
::: laughing :::
I heard about this on the rad
February 17, 2007 - 00:53 ET by NeoConfirmedI heard about this on the radio.
Tancredo said he was going to keep puffin'. The report said that he has three air fresheners in his office. (Stop: How bIg does you're office have to be to need 3 AIR FRESHENERS?). Anyway, if I were Tom, I'd send Ellison a box of Cubans with a string on it. When he went to grab for them, I'd pull them back and yell RETREAT!
The Supreme Leader of Iran favors Tancredo.
February 17, 2007 - 01:30 ET by mastersofdeceitWell the Supreme Ayatollah of The Islamic Republic of Iran (The one Diane Sawyer should have been interviewing) seems to rule in favor of Tancredo. (link on the right " practical laws of islam " )
Q- " What is the view on smoking in government departments and public places?"
Ans.- " It is not permissible if it is in contravention of the regulations in force in those departments and public places"
Since the regulations allow it, it's not in contravention. So Tancredo should be clear of a Cigar Fatwa Jihad by Ellison.
Q- "Is it permissible to buy, sell, and smoke tobacco?"
Ans.- " There is no objection to buying, selling, and using tobacco per se"
Someone should notify Keith "can't use my right hand on the Koran" Ellison.
Mullah overules!!
Master,I'm glad to know that
February 17, 2007 - 01:37 ET by NeoConfirmedMaster,
I'm glad to know that Iran approves of office smoke.
Off with your head...
lol! Hey it is the Supreme Le
February 17, 2007 - 01:45 ET by mastersofdeceitlol! Hey it is the Supreme Leader after all!
Neo- Just to be clear, becaus
February 17, 2007 - 02:15 ET by mastersofdeceitNeo- Just to be clear, because I'm like Dennis Prager I prefer clarity, I don't use any //sarcasm tags or whatever. So yes the post was mostly written tongue-in-cheek. I realise that we don't live in Iran. However, Khamenei's comments were made in a general q&a about the laws of islam. I would think Ellison being a good muslim would want to follow those. IMO yes the whole thing is stupid and Ellison should just back off.
Democrats, the first ones to assault the Capitol Police, the first ones to call em.
Master,I like Prager, Medved
February 17, 2007 - 02:22 ET by NeoConfirmedMaster,
I like Prager, Medved and Ingraham.
On a larger scale, Hannity and O'Reilly. (Rush is too much for me)
I got your post. Just thought the Iran connection was unnecessary.
Point taken. Actually what I'
February 17, 2007 - 02:34 ET by mastersofdeceitPoint taken. Actually what I'd really get a kick out of is if Tancredo printed that out from the website & hand carried it over to Ellisons office! I'm being 2 sided here. I already know the whole thing is stupid, and yet if Ellison wants to play muslim hardball, then he should follow the Head Honcho of Irans (who is a main authority) rules regarding Islam.
Don't do O'reilly and not much Hannity. But I like the others, take care.
I humbly suggest that you 'do
February 17, 2007 - 02:44 ET by NeoConfirmedI humbly suggest that you 'do' O'Reilly. After hearing them all, he's the best on both TV and Radio. The guy is a moderate conservative regardless of his mask of independentness. (Is that a Word?) Challenging, Fair, and Likable, he's No. 1 for a reason. He's well worth a look or listen.
Yet in several articles on
February 17, 2007 - 12:06 ET by JDWYet in several articles on Barack Obama, the Times has made only light mentions of his liberal views.
Is LAT... snowing us with unavailing information about dems in order to firewall their true political records let alone campaign platforms?
What about the conservatives? Does brevity equate to lockout?
JDW
Wounded skier. Corrections have been causing time-outs so mistakes will be made.
New pro-adoption dems, what about replacing abortions?
Dave, you found more..
February 17, 2007 - 14:49 ET by Gary HallDave, you found more of a reference to the word "liberal" in the puffy news promo pieces for Hillary, Edwards, and the big winner Obama, than I did. I searched about a dozen and did not even see the word at all. They do make it tough, do they not?
And that Feb 10th piece on Rudy Giuliani contained the word "conservative" 6 times.
I also noticed that following Giuliani'sannouncement on Larry King Live (a darn good interview, I might note) - that he was absolutely running for president, the other night, the LA Times printed - NOTHING. Nothing but Silence. I picked up the phone and had a lengthy discussion with the Washington office of the Times - and yea, they knew, but the bottom line seemed to be that it wasn't news. "Giuliani - oh, he sort of announces all the time, and un-announces.. this wasn't news." The conversation was indeed interesting, and in my view, very telling.
I suppose the several major front page stories preceeding Obama's "much wanted" announcement, as well as the follow-up stories, are news?