Sound Politics Public Blog: media bias rolls on.

July 24, 2009

media bias rolls on.

I was not too interested in a corruption story from the opposite shore, but I decided to read it anyway, just to see how the identification of political affiliations was handled. The Seattle Times story is here
Sure enough, party affiliation is not mentioned until the second-to-last paragraph, where four suspects are named. Three are Democrats; one is a Republican state legislator:

"Most of those arrested were public officials and included Mayor Peter Cammarano, 32, of Hoboken, who took office July 1, and Mayor Dennis Elwell of Secaucus, both Democrats; Assemblyman L. Harvey Smith of Jersey City, also a Democrat; and Assemblyman Daniel Van Pelt, a Republican from Ocean County."

Exact numbers are not yet available, but I have gleaned the following from various sources: 44 were arrested; about five were rabbis. Most if not all of the rest were public officials. Only one of those was a Republican, the rest were Democrats.

Does anyone of sound mind doubt that if this had been a red-state scandal, the Times headline would have been something like "Graft bust nets busload of Republicans," and the lede would have been something like "The FBI arrested over 40 people on corruption charges, mostly public officials, all of whom but one were Republicans.."

The beat goes on, and sorry, but I can't help but cheer everytime one of them goes belly-up.

Posted by 6p01053690976c970c at July 24, 2009 05:01 AM | Email This

Comments

1. I thought the same thing this morning while reading the AP story. Where are the (d) or (R) associated with the politicians in the story? I had to google the names to find their political affiliation and almost all of them are democrats. There is certainly a double standard in the "press" when it comes to democrats and Republicans. The press, as it was intended, is dead. They've gone from watchdogs to lapdogs in the last 25 years.

Posted by: Rick D. on July 24, 2009 06:06 AM

2. Are you willing to criticize Fox News then? I mean, instead of burying the party affiliation, they just switch it from "R" to "D"...

Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2009 12:57 PM

3. I am open to any criticism of Fox News. You don't mean to imply that an instance of bias at Fox News absolves the Seattle Times or AP, do you?

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 24, 2009 01:53 PM

4. You don't mean to imply that an instance of bias at Fox News absolves the Seattle Times or AP, do you?

You're making the argument that the media has a wholly left-wing bias. I state that this is incorrect. You haven't provided proof to the contrary.

Whining about the fact that people enjoy seeing sanctimonious social conservative hypocrites taken down isn't quite the same as "bias" against scandals of all sorts, either. Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer and James McGreevey would certainly object to the idea that the press isn't afraid to take on tawdry scandals involving Democrats.

With respect to financial scandals, Blagojevich was routinely referred to as a Democrat in the press. For other run-of-the-mill legal issues, though, there are times when neither Democrats or Republicans make front page news. Think that most regular folks have heard of Jerry Lewis outside of his district? Don Young? John Doolittle (when he was a representative)?

You just don't have a leg to stand on here. I'm sorry. But seriously... do you feel picked on? Are you that emotionally sensitive?

Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2009 04:26 PM

5. Why quote my question if you are not going to answer it? Does bias at Fox absolve bias at the Seattle Times?

Where was I 'whining about the fact that people enjoy seeing sanctimonius social conservative hypocrites taken down?' I just reread my post, and I didn't mention any such thing. Sex scandals are a topic for another thread, in any case.

Offhand, I can't think of a similarly-scaled state-level corruption scandal involving Republicans, so I can't offer absolute proof that the media treats R's and D's differently in identical scandals. But no sane person could deny that the media trumpeted the R party affiliation in national corruption cases of 00-06, such as Duke Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff & friends.

For example I google Seattle Times+Jack Abramoff, and here is the first story that comes up. Sure enough the word "Republican" is in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the story. Not the second-to-last paragraph.

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 25, 2009 02:54 AM

6. Does bias at Fox absolve bias at the Seattle Times?

Bias exists everywhere, but I'm interested that you think this is a serious concern when other news outlets specifically lie to support their bias.

Offhand, I can't think of a similarly-scaled state-level corruption scandal involving Republicans, so I can't offer absolute proof that the media treats R's and D's differently in identical scandals.

Why don't you come back with some kind of proof, then?

Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2009 09:39 AM

7. Because this is not geometry class.

Do you have any defenses to offer beyond 'everyone does it' ('bias exists everywhere') or diversion (what about Fox news?)?

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 25, 2009 10:33 AM

8. I wonder what the TIMES headline would be if they were to crack down on the 206 Mafia aka King County. They would get a lot more that 40 locked up. Hey maybe they can put them on that new Sound Transit line, picking up more offenders at each stop and drop them off over at the detention facility near the airport. Nice the Ron Sims jail bound express...all aboard.

Posted by: Smokie on July 25, 2009 02:53 PM

9. please, please, please learn to read. or learn to stop lying.

a. the story is by the l.a. and ny times.

b. the political affiliations of those arrested is written halfway through the article:
Among them were 29 New Jersey public officials, including three mayors, two state assemblymen, several city council members, local commissioners and regulatory inspectors. All but one of the officeholders are Democrats.

and then you lied:
Only one of those was a Republican, the rest were Democrats.

so other than the public officials, how do you know they're all democrats? oooh, because they're corrupt! riiight, i know that's what you are thinking, but that's not it...

is it their previous campaign contributions? did you check their ballots?

are foreign citizens "democrats"? that's a new one for me...

all rabbi's are democrats, too? news to me.

all real estate developers are dems? wow, the list keeps growing!

all public officials are democrats? epic fail!

still pales in comparison to abramoff.

Posted by: mike on July 26, 2009 01:10 AM

10. @7: Do you have any defenses to offer beyond 'everyone does it' ('bias exists everywhere') or diversion (what about Fox news?)?

You're making conjecture about the media using cherry-picked anecdotal evidence. Again, do you think that regular folks even know who Doolittle or Lewis are? Do you think that Cunningham got less coverage than William Jefferson? (I'll give you a hint: yes.) If your claim is that Republicans are more "picked on" because they're Republicans, why don't you back it up with hard data before shooting your damn fool mouth off?

Posted by: demo kid on July 26, 2009 11:03 AM

11. Mike, I believe the original version from the Seattle Times did not include the sentence near the midpoint that said that all but one of the public officials were Democrats. Sometimes these stories are edited in response to comments.

And please, please, please follow your own advice and learn to read.

I wrote: "44 were arrested; about five were rabbis. Most if not all of the rest were public officials. Only one of those was a Republican, the rest were Democrats.
"

You wrote: "and then you lied:
Only one of those was a Republican, the rest were Democrats.

so other than the public officials, how do you know they're all democrats? oooh, because they're corrupt! riiight, i know that's what you are thinking, but that's not it...
"

"Of those" clearly refers to the public officials. I do not know the affiliation, if any, of the non-officials arrested, and did not say or imply anything about it.

Now I will wait to see if you are man enough to apologize for calling me a liar. You did not read carefully, and I didn't write what you thought I wrote.

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 26, 2009 01:21 PM

12. @10, ah yes, when all else fails, resort to name-calling ('damn fool mouth'). Where did I say that Cunningham got more coverage than Jefferson? And talk about cherry-picking. You find one case where a Dem was well covered and focus on that. The guy did have bags of cash in his freezer, so you know that would be repeated ad infinitum. Cunningham was well covered.

I just posted about this one Seattle Times article. If you want charts and statistics, they are available elsewhere. Try Brent Bozell's site.

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 26, 2009 01:32 PM

13. you wrote that of the 44 arrested, minus the 5 rabbis and unlucky republican, "Most if not all of the rest were public officials"

yes, a large number of those arrested, but "not all"

only 29 of those arrested are public officials. they way you summarized it, 38 of the 44 arrested were dems, and that's just not the case.

Posted by: mike on July 26, 2009 01:49 PM

14. @12: Name-calling is appropriate here. You're moaning and wailing about ONE piece of evidence, without providing proof that this represents consistent bias on the part of the Seattle Times. I may have picked out a case where a "Dem was well-covered", and two cases where Republicans were NOT well-covered, but they are counter-examples to disprove your statement, not to prove my own. Unless you can come up with better proof that there is a substantive bias, either with the Seattle Times or all media whatsoever, all you're doing is whining like a big ol' baby.

(Not to mention, of course, that the story isn't even written by the Seattle Times!)

Posted by: demo kid on July 26, 2009 03:57 PM

15. Mike, read it again. I never said nor 'summarized' that 38 were democrats. I said that 44 were arrested. Five were rabbis, leaving 39, (not 38). I said that of those most were public officials, and of the public officials, one was Republican.

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 27, 2009 01:12 AM

16. Demo kid, name calling is not 'appropriate,' it is a substitute for a weak argument. And yes, I am focusing on one piece of evidence. I'm glad you figured that out.

Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 27, 2009 01:17 AM