So let's see, a Democratic former North Carolina state House Speaker gets sentenced to prison for five years and fined $50,000 for bribery. The Associated Press covers the story and doesn't give readers his party affiliation until the 6th paragraph.
But a Florida Republican state legislator is only arrested for solicitation of oral sex from an undercover male police officer, and his party affiliation is rendered in the second paragraph of the AP story.
That doesn't seem to square with the AP Stylebook, which says party affiliation mention should be tested by relevance to the story and that in some stories "[p]arty affiliation is pointless."
Unless there's some bias there. Perish the thought.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The style book is predictab
July 13, 2007 - 05:58 ET by sarcasmoThe style book is predictably antilibertarian-biased. Party affiliation is NEVER irrelevant because they'd ALWAYS mention it for a "minor" party, so even in the most pointless story they write, I'm interested. I don't know how much keyboard time I've spent here on NB, berating "professional" journalists about how easy it is to just put a party-initial and a state abbreviation behind politicians' names, no-matter what the story. This is an easy one to fix, guys. Why not just give up and fix it?
JMR
I agree. Party affiliation
July 13, 2007 - 06:30 ET by motherbeltI agree. Party affiliation is either always relevant, or never relevant. Leaving it up to the writer, or the paper, brings subjective judgment into play, which should not happen in a news story.
And think about how that &q
July 13, 2007 - 06:35 ET by sarcasmoAnd think about how that "subjective judgement" plays out in a real world filled with Greens, Libertarians, New Alliance Party members, etc. and not just Democrats and Republicans. It's effectively bias for the 2-party duopoly, and even though I'm now a Republican instead of a Libertarian, my opinions on the alleged fairness of this blatantly-biased situation have not changed, because the principles behind those opinions have not changed. If ANY J-school professor ANYWHERE in the USA wants me to address a class on this issue, I've easily got a class in me off the top of my head .
JMR
sarcasmo Says: Why not jus
July 13, 2007 - 07:55 ET by DontFeedTheTrollssarcasmo Says: Why not just give up and fix it?
Sarc, that's the point, the MSM knows this and uses it as one of it's tools to divide and control.
Propaganda, it's the other white meat.
P.S. Sarc, I found a candidate who will answer your question about which federal bureaucracy would he abolish, Mike Huckabee said he will abolish the IRS and switch to a consumption tax. I wish!
D
I don't support our liberals or their mission.
Nice, did he mention a perc
July 13, 2007 - 08:03 ET by sarcasmoNice, did he mention a percentage? As we've seen, by merely cutting back to spending levels of the last year of Bill Clinton -- a time when I was relentlessly-bitching about big government spending, BTW -- we could get rid of it and replace it with NOTHING, and the "and replace it with NOTHING!" part is the true small-government test, but he's off to a better start than the RINOs the media's pushing even if he has not caught up with the candidate the news media most-fears. (And for better & more-comprehensive coverage of the extensive anti-Ron-Paul media-bias than I do singlehandedly here, please see the DailyPaul site, which at this point features an anti-bias in the media petition/debate nobody's noticing while they don't-notice the bias against Dr. Paul...)
JMR
sarcasmo Says: Nice, did h
July 13, 2007 - 13:04 ET by DontFeedTheTrollssarcasmo Says: Nice, did he mention a percentage?
No percentage given. Heard him on the radio and he said 'consumption tax not value added tax' and he would disband the IRS.
Could be good if others are challenged to follow suit.
D
I don't support our liberals or their mission.