....certainly knows that the Dems are just as or more so corrupt than the GOP. It's just that the Dems represent their interests and vice versa so they cover for them.
Well, it's because they didn't think it would be a problem for viewers to figure out Spitzer's party affiliation - just ask some of our resident nay-sayers here.
I am listening to CNBC while I type this and they are talking about Spitzer. Of course, they are still talking about how shocked they are that he was involved in a prostitution ring. And, naturally, they have failed to mention his party, that this makes the NY dimocrat party corrupt, what the implications are at the national level, what import this has for billary as spitzer is a super delegate, etc.
In other words, it is the usual drive by nonsense when it comes to the favored political party.
I believe they do this purposefully, especially in print, so that when people do Nexis searches (or any other db search engine) for things like 'indictment', 'corrupt', 'scandal', etc. Republicans always come back with more hits. In fact, for any 'bad behaviour' stories, they will purposefully use the word Republican more than Democrat (if even used) just by quoting people, so that the hits still bring back more Republican 'hits' for bad things than democrats. I believe the DOJ and FEC should launch investigations especially into the AP and Reuters for willingly, knowingly and maliciously 'misinforming' the public to make it appear Republicans are 'more corrupt' than Democrats, when factually, the exact opposite is probably true. The bias and willful misinformation is not even trying to be hidden anymore, and needs to be addressed!
(Sorry, Crosspatch. I see you already made this point in another post)
The journalists do not want to bias, or to be accused of biasing, what others might think of Eliot Spitzer’s ironic circumstance, especially as self-righteous right-wingnuts are crazed with indignation over the currently rumored alleged possible misconduct of Eliot Spitzer, who after all is just as entitled to the protection of his privacy as anybody else.
NB: – meaning “nota bene,” by the way – referring to this hypocritical fraud/cad/criminal as “Eliot” Spitzer obviates having to use titles like Governor or Ex-Governor, which might in turn cause some people to think of, say, politics, and maybe then of political parties, and then, wait a minute, which political party is it that would be involved here?
make some sense. Second just because you use extravagant words every other one, doesn't make you smart. Nor does it give the allusion you know what you are talking about. Also sentences end in periods not commas.
Now by saying this is ironic you imply that this by no means would never happen to a man like Elliot Spitzer. Unfortunatley this is not the case and makes the irony here rather lacking. Also the misconduct is no longer alleged, it is proven. His privacy is protected yes, but when you choose to live the public life expect your dirty laundry to be public as well. I also did not see you on this site complaining that the "I am not gay, nor have I ever been gay!" Republican Senator every being deprived of his privacy.
The issue brought up is the bias in the media issue. This is there. No mention of the Michigan Governer's affilitaion, only a few mentions of Spitzers party(mostly by FNC), and yet every time a Republican is in the news there is that "R" next to his/her name. If there was not a bias the MSM would be displaying the "D" everytime Spitzer's name showed itself on the screen.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” - Thomas Jefferson
My previous comment was intended as a parody defense of the behavior of MSM journalists.
If you do not see it that way, and /or it does not amuse you, please don’t take offense,...unless you are an MSM journalist. In that case, offensiveness is almost expected.
although it went completely over my head. No offense here. I don't get offended needle rather I just dismiss. I guess my response was based more on the confusion it left after I read your post. IMO though, the MSM is a parody in itself.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” - Thomas Jefferson
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The MSM...
March 12, 2008 - 13:17 ET by Prester John....certainly knows that the Dems are just as or more so corrupt than the GOP. It's just that the Dems represent their interests and vice versa so they cover for them.
I picked the third
March 12, 2008 - 13:17 ET by NewsbusterbrownI picked the third choice.
Anybody thinks it's an oversight on their part is either delusional or a liar (or both).
Well this is another no
March 12, 2008 - 13:18 ET by bigtimerWell this is another no brainer here.
ROFLMAO!
Well, it's because they
March 12, 2008 - 13:36 ET by Chris NormanWell, it's because they didn't think it would be a problem for viewers to figure out Spitzer's party affiliation - just ask some of our resident nay-sayers here.
I'll bet Leon and balboa
March 12, 2008 - 14:06 ET by Indiana JoeI'll bet Leon and balboa were the two "oversight" votes.
;^) (just kidding, bal)
IJ, Add "Jer", subtract bal
March 12, 2008 - 16:42 ET by Chris NormanIJ,
Add "Jer", subtract bal - I don't think even bal would deny this phenomena in face of the evidence. You wouldn't dare, would you, bal?
Jer is definitely a "denier"
March 13, 2008 - 09:16 ET by ahusserJer is definitely a "denier" when it comes to this issue.
I chose "oversight" because
March 12, 2008 - 13:39 ET by RackieI chose "oversight" because I thought it was Sarcasm Day.
I am listening to CNBC
March 12, 2008 - 13:49 ET by jdhawkI am listening to CNBC while I type this and they are talking about Spitzer. Of course, they are still talking about how shocked they are that he was involved in a prostitution ring. And, naturally, they have failed to mention his party, that this makes the NY dimocrat party corrupt, what the implications are at the national level, what import this has for billary as spitzer is a super delegate, etc.
In other words, it is the usual drive by nonsense when it comes to the favored political party.
Done purposefully
March 12, 2008 - 13:52 ET by Mark_for_SenateI believe they do this purposefully, especially in print, so that when people do Nexis searches (or any other db search engine) for things like 'indictment', 'corrupt', 'scandal', etc. Republicans always come back with more hits. In fact, for any 'bad behaviour' stories, they will purposefully use the word Republican more than Democrat (if even used) just by quoting people, so that the hits still bring back more Republican 'hits' for bad things than democrats. I believe the DOJ and FEC should launch investigations especially into the AP and Reuters for willingly, knowingly and maliciously 'misinforming' the public to make it appear Republicans are 'more corrupt' than Democrats, when factually, the exact opposite is probably true. The bias and willful misinformation is not even trying to be hidden anymore, and needs to be addressed!
(Sorry, Crosspatch. I see you already made this point in another post)
To know and not do, is to not yet know
avoidance of bias
March 12, 2008 - 16:58 ET by needleThe journalists do not want to bias, or to be accused of biasing, what others might think of Eliot Spitzer’s ironic circumstance, especially as self-righteous right-wingnuts are crazed with indignation over the currently rumored alleged possible misconduct of Eliot Spitzer, who after all is just as entitled to the protection of his privacy as anybody else.
NB: – meaning “nota bene,” by the way – referring to this hypocritical fraud/cad/criminal as “Eliot” Spitzer obviates having to use titles like Governor or Ex-Governor, which might in turn cause some people to think of, say, politics, and maybe then of political parties, and then, wait a minute, which political party is it that would be involved here?
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
First of all..
March 13, 2008 - 06:09 ET by NavyBuckeyemake some sense. Second just because you use extravagant words every other one, doesn't make you smart. Nor does it give the allusion you know what you are talking about. Also sentences end in periods not commas.
Now by saying this is ironic you imply that this by no means would never happen to a man like Elliot Spitzer. Unfortunatley this is not the case and makes the irony here rather lacking. Also the misconduct is no longer alleged, it is proven. His privacy is protected yes, but when you choose to live the public life expect your dirty laundry to be public as well. I also did not see you on this site complaining that the "I am not gay, nor have I ever been gay!" Republican Senator every being deprived of his privacy.
The issue brought up is the bias in the media issue. This is there. No mention of the Michigan Governer's affilitaion, only a few mentions of Spitzers party(mostly by FNC), and yet every time a Republican is in the news there is that "R" next to his/her name. If there was not a bias the MSM would be displaying the "D" everytime Spitzer's name showed itself on the screen.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” - Thomas Jefferson
defense or offense
March 13, 2008 - 11:43 ET by needleMy previous comment was intended as a parody defense of the behavior of MSM journalists.
If you do not see it that way, and /or it does not amuse you, please don’t take offense,...unless you are an MSM journalist. In that case, offensiveness is almost expected.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
So be it....
March 13, 2008 - 14:04 ET by NavyBuckeyealthough it went completely over my head. No offense here. I don't get offended needle rather I just dismiss. I guess my response was based more on the confusion it left after I read your post. IMO though, the MSM is a parody in itself.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” - Thomas Jefferson