Here's another glaring example of the sin of omission.
The Paper of Record couldn't bring itself to identify the party affiliations of several New Jersey Democrats who were indicted for diddling and corrupting the pension funds of thousands of public employees. The New York Times appears to be attempting to limit political damage for its chosen party by scrubbing its dispatches of a key word/descriptor: Democrat. The NYT reports:
In 2005, New Jersey put either $551 million, $56 million or nothing into its pension fund for teachers. All three figures appeared in various state documents — though the state now says that the actual amount was zero. [...] New Jersey has been diverting billions of dollars from its pension fund for state and local workers into other government purposes over the last 15 years, using a variety of unorthodox transactions authorized by the Legislature and by governors from both political parties.
Ed Lasky at the American Thinker notes that New Jersey (a Democrat stronghold for decades) has had four Democrat governors and a Democrat-controlled legislature since 2002, placing the political blame for such a burgeoning scandal squarely on their shoulders. The only instance in which the term "Democrat" is used in the entire piece about the Democrat scandal is when identifying the party affiliation of Governor John Corzine (who has unreported ties to another scandal) deep within the article.
What you leave out is often as important, if not more important, than what you leave in. Editing 101.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I kind of like it when they d
April 4, 2007 - 13:38 ET by muh-oonI kind of like it when they do this, because it not only makes clear their bias, but also shows shame and fear.
I know this much...There's
April 4, 2007 - 13:47 ET by sarcasmoI know this much...There's a very high chance the news media will do this for Democrats, a much-lower but still-there chance they'll do it for Republicans, and a 0% chance they'll do it for Libertarians (assuming we ever get the political power to hold a halfway-decent scandal!). That's why this is an example of antiLibertarian bias every time it happens, as well as an example of poor journalism. It's vital that sites like NB attack every time this happens, no matter what the political party that's benefitting.
JMR
Indicted? Really?
April 4, 2007 - 15:23 ET by man_from_outer_space"...several New Jersey Democrats who were "indicted" for diddling and corrupting the pension funds of thousands of public employees." --Eric Arr
The article indicates there may not have even been a crime: "Treasury officials said that everything had been done legally."
I don't see anything in the NYT article cited where anyone has been "indicted".
If the author meant this in a non-legal sense, then it was sloppy and misleading by not using better words not as strongly associated with a precise legal meaning. If he meant it in a legal sense, then it is factually incorrect.
Our problem, on too many occa
April 4, 2007 - 15:34 ET by Cool ArrowOur problem, on too many occasions, is not that the MSM doesn't report party affiliation, but that citizens choose ignorance.
Which party is it that has controlled New Jersey and Louisiana, like forever?
Why is it these States are so proud of the corruption that robs, and yes, even kills its citizens.
William Jefferson our man in Homeland Security
Huey Long - they're still bragging on this dirtbag
Bob Torricelli - Sell your country out for a nickel
Marion Barry - I know DC isn't a State, so it's probably just too hard to gauge party affiliation there, huh?
Duke Cunningham - How long did Republicans abide one of their own selling out?
And why is it voting rights violations happen exclusively in Democrat districts.
As Algore would say; "Let them eat chads"