Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Culture of corruption/Liberal Bias
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 14:18:54 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Media's coverage of scandal exposes bias
By Bruce Bartlett

Jan 24, 2006

One of the things that drives Republicans crazy is the media’s enormous double-standard in how it covers various scandals. While day after day we read on the front pages about how awful it was that a Republican congressman played golf with some lobbyist—as if that is the epitome of unethical behavior—cases of actual criminality by Democrats are buried on the back pages.

For example, on Jan. 12, the New York Times ran yet another article on page one linking Rep. Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, along with two columns about Abramoff on the inside pages. There was absolutely nothing new in any of these articles.

That same day, however, there was real news about a former aide to Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, who pleaded guilty the day before to bribing the congressman. The aide, Brett Pfeffer, said that his former boss had demanded a stake in Pfeffer’s business in return for his support. He also alleged that Jefferson had insisted that two of his relatives be put on Pfeffer’s payroll.

Apparently, the FBI has been investigating Jefferson for some time. It has raided his home and wired conversations with him in a sting operation.

So how did the Times handle this hot news? It appeared on page 28. Moreover, the Times couldn’t even be bothered to have one of its own reporters look into the case and instead ran Associated Press wire copy.

Also on Jan. 12, on page five of the second section, the Times reported that a state assemblyman who had formerly headed the Brooklyn Democratic Party was sentenced to jail a day earlier for receiving illegal contributions. The assemblyman, Clarence Norman Jr., faces other charges as well.

On Jan. 23, the Times reported that former Atlanta mayor Bill Campbell is on trial for receiving payoffs of $150,000 from companies doing business with the city, as well as $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and other gratuities. This article appeared on page 12.

Nowhere in the article was Mr. Campbell’s political affiliation mentioned. I had to do an Internet search to discover that he is a Democrat. Yet the article had plenty of space to discuss at some length what a great mayor Campbell had been.

I’m not saying that these stories should necessarily have been front-page news. But it does seem suspicious when news about Democratic corruption is systematically buried on the back pages, while the front page carries yet another rehash of the DeLay/Abramoff connection containing nothing new.

Ever since Watergate, a key media template has been that the Republican Party is the party of corruption. Thus every wrongdoing of any Republican tends to get page one treatment, while Democratic corruption is treated as routine and buried on the back pages, mentioned once and then forgotten.

Yet any objective study of comparative party corruption would have to conclude that Democrats are far more likely to be caught engaging in it than Republicans. For example, a review of misconduct cases in the House of Representatives since Watergate shows many more cases involving Democrats than Republicans.

Skeptics can go to the web site of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, popularly known as the House Ethics Committee. Click on “historical documents” and go to a publication called “Historical Summary of Conduct Cases in the House of Representatives.” The document was last updated on November 9, 2004 and lists every ethics case since 1798, when Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut attacked Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont with a “stout cane” and Lyon responded with a pair of fireplace tongs.

By my count, there have been 70 different members of the House who have been investigated for serious offenses over the last 30 years, including many involving actual criminality and jail time. Of these, only 15 involved Republicans, with the remaining 55 involving Democrats.

I have no doubt that any poll of the American people asking which party had more frequently been the subject of House ethics investigations would show an overwhelming majority naming the Republicans, when the truth is that Democrats, historically, have been far more likely to have been investigated.

The reason is that the liberal media harp on Republican misdeeds monotonously because to them the subject never gets boring. By contrast, Democratic wrongdoing tends to be treated in a perfunctory manner with no follow-up. This imbalance of coverage, which is unrelated to the seriousness of the charges, naturally tends to make people think Republicans are more corrupt, when a reasonable person reviewing all the evidence would have to conclude that Democrats are much more likely to be corrupt.

Of course, another explanation for the disparate treatment may be that Democratic corruption is so commonplace that it really isn’t “news.” Democrats should consider that possibility before launching a campaign against Republican corruption.




 
Asswipe Posted: Wed Jan 25 01:06:07 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  who cares? Newspapers print stories to make money. They want the largest readership, and if they don't think a story is terribly newsworthy, they won't put it at the head of the piece. Who is this guy and why are you reading the crap he writes?

So, readership and newsworthyness is based on the readers in the area where the newspaper is distributed. Being primarily distributed in new york, where the voters are primarily left leaning, wouldn't it make sense to post stories that would attract them the most as readers?

How can this guy use only two examples, found only in one newspaper and claim his findings throughout all media?

trash, hif. stop reading this trash.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jan 25 07:15:45 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Isn't this just the pot making fun of the kettle hif?

Or are you saying that the right media has no bias?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jan 25 08:05:57 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Isn't this just the pot making fun of the kettle hif?
>
>Or are you saying that the right media has no bias?
>
It's not a question of right or left media, it's a question of the mainstream media claiming not to be biased.


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Jan 25 10:06:58 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Maybe its a question of the Size of said corruption.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jan 25 11:32:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ah, but here's the thing, isn't most of the US main stream media either left or right?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jan 25 11:39:15 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Ah, but here's the thing, isn't most of the US main stream media either left or right?
>
That's the point that is being made, to illustrate that the Mainstream media is left biased. It's an ongoing debate here in the States.
The mainstream media which includes the print media and broadcast news claims to have no bias, but it has been proven over and over again, that they lean predominately to the left.
Pretty much the only way to get a point of view from the right is from cable TV and talk radio, which, if added together reach about 1/10th of the people Katie Couric reaches during her first hour in the morning.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jan 25 12:20:04 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Is fox not seen as mainstream, and are you saying fox isn't biased?

(no sarcasm again)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jan 25 12:42:41 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Is fox not seen as mainstream, and are you saying fox isn't biased?
>
>(no sarcasm again)
>
Fox is not really mainstream because they are on the cable, not a broadcast network.
They are not blatantly biased as the networks newscasts are.
When you watch the mainstream you get only the liberal point of view.
When you watch Fox, you get points of view from both sides, because of this, liberals say they lean to the right.
I say they might lean to the right, but just a little, more like center right.
For example, Fox has enough sense to distance themselves from loonies like Pat Robertson, but you would never hear of say, NBC denouncing Harry Belafonte or Jesse Jackson. They are actually embraced by the mainstream.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jan 25 13:54:54 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I saw that o'reilly guy though (few threads back)

I'd say that's about as biased/loonie as they get.


no?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jan 25 14:01:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I saw that o'reilly guy though (few threads back)
>
>I'd say that's about as biased/loonie as they get.
>
>
>no?
>
I'm actually a big fan of his, though I'll admit he can get looney from time to time. He definitely leans to the right for sure, but he's not extreme right. More like center right.
But one thing you have to remember is that he doesn't broadcast the news, he delivers opinion for a living.
That's quite different than, say Dan Rather or Katie Couric.


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Jan 25 14:47:06 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  O'rielly schmo'rielly. He's a big pussycat. It's that Michael Savage who's a Peanut M&M in a bag of Original Milk Chocolates.


He is funny though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Michael_Savage_neologisms


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Jan 25 18:19:05 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
> Harry Belafonte

My girl's name is Senora....


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]