stuckincincy Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Not a party to Eliot Spitzer scandal? Ray Cooklis, Editorial Board Member, Cincinnati Enquirer 03/13/08 "Eliot Spitzer is a Democrat. There. At least somebody's said it right up front. If you're watching the news accounts of the soon-to-be-ex-New York governor's call-girl scandal and resignation this week, you'd be listening in vain to find out what party he belongs to. NBC's Today Show never mentioned Spitzer's party during 11 segments about him on its Tuesday broadcast, according to Media Research Center, which tracks media bias. Neither ABC's nor NBC's evening newscasts Tuesday identified him as a Democrat, but put the party tag on Republicans responding to the scandal. The New York Times' story online Wednesday, for example, identified Spitzer as a Democrat in the 17th paragraph. The Associated Press story that appeared on the Enquirer's Web site buried it in the 18th paragraph. Contrast that with recent stories about Republican Sen. Sen. Larry Craig, whose lawyers are trying to invalidate his guilty plea for soliciting sex in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport men's room last year. The Associated Press noted Craig's political party in the first paragraph of its story, as did the Washington Post. CNN had it in the second paragraph, as did the Minneapolis Star-Tribune."... http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...30310/1090/EDIT
PastaJoe Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Most people know who Governor Eliot Spitzer is and his party affiliation, I doubt most people even heard of Larry Craig before his toe-tap episode. I think you're reaching with Glenn Beck talking points.
pBills Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 See your point. However the bigger issue with Spitzer is that he built his career based on "doing what's right". And doing what is right didn't mean a 22 year old hottie. People, both republicans and democrats liked this guy because of his aggressive nature with organized crime, etc., etc. Granted he was an up and comer within the party once he took office - but the bigger issue is that Mr. Clean was dirty.
molson_golden2002 Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Oh, there is bias, check out these two stories on the exact same topic: First the one that appears in the America press: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_...el_palestinians And how its handled in the UK: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080307/tuk...ts-fa6b408.html The American version is a basic cut and paste from the Israeli press and really is pretty useless. Why are the Pals and Europe angry? Never says so. Just because, I guess.
Brandon Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Most people know who Governor Eliot Spitzer is and his party affiliation, I doubt most people even heard of Larry Craig before his toe-tap episode. I think you're reaching with Glenn Beck talking points. If by 'most people' you mean those living in New York or perhaps the New England region, yeah, that may be true. Otherwise, he's pretty far from a household name on a national basis. So while this may or may not be a story, I think its erroneous to say that he's so well known that there's no reason to mention his party affiliation. That's just not true.
KD in CA Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Most people know who Governor Eliot Spitzer is and his party affiliation, I doubt most people even heard of Larry Craig before his toe-tap episode. I think you're reaching with Glenn Beck talking points. That's absurd. Most people know the party affiliation of a Gov of another state hundreds or thousands of miles away? Glad to see you're jumping right back into full Dem-aplogoy mode post-board crash.
Brandon Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 That's absurd. Most people know the party affiliation of a Gov of another state hundreds or thousands of miles away? Glad to see you're jumping right back into full Dem-aplogoy mode post-board crash. As pathetic as it is, I would imagine that a decent percentage of the general population doesn't even know who their own state's governor is, let alone his or her party affiliation.
PastaJoe Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 That's absurd. Most people know the party affiliation of a Gov of another state hundreds or thousands of miles away? Glad to see you're jumping right back into full Dem-aplogoy mode post-board crash. The guy was in the national news as an attorney general for his prosecutions of Wall Street figures. Anybody who didn't know his party affiliation probably doesn't pay attention to the news anyways. You'd have a better case if it was a person who didn't have national exposure, like a mayor or representative. It's silly to even be discussing this non-issue.
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 I was going to start a thread on something I heard on the radio on the way to work this morning but I think it will fit in here. I was listening to KPFK a local Radio Pacifica station. They were taking about a conference or something of US soldiers agains the Iraq war. She prefaced it with a comment about something similar that happened in 1971 with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. She starting out by talking about the Vietnam war and stated that there were hundreds of thousands of US troops killed in Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands?? Just a slight exaggeration seeing there were only 58,000 killed. No liberal bias there.
Chilly Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 I was going to start a thread on something I heard on the radio on the way to work this morning but I think it will fit in here. I was listening to KPFK a local Radio Pacifica station. They were taking about a conference or something of US soldiers agains the Iraq war. She prefaced it with a comment about something similar that happened in 1971 with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. She starting out by talking about the Vietnam war and stated that there were hundreds of thousands of US troops killed in Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands?? Just a slight exaggeration seeing there were only 58,000 killed. No liberal bias there. Er, you're referring to talk radio, right?
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Er, you're referring to talk radio, right? Yes, should that make a difference?
molson_golden2002 Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 I was going to start a thread on something I heard on the radio on the way to work this morning but I think it will fit in here. I was listening to KPFK a local Radio Pacifica station. They were taking about a conference or something of US soldiers agains the Iraq war. She prefaced it with a comment about something similar that happened in 1971 with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. She starting out by talking about the Vietnam war and stated that there were hundreds of thousands of US troops killed in Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands?? Just a slight exaggeration seeing there were only 58,000 killed. No liberal bias there. And I was listening to Garrison Keeler doing the Writer's Almanac and he was doing "on this date in history" and it was the anniversey of the Battle of Midway and he "informed" me that the Japanese lost seven aircraft carriers in the battle. Proof that NPR is a nationalist propaganda machine! Or that they made a mistake, maybe like the dingbat you were listening to? *We sank four carriers in that battle*
KD in CA Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 The guy was in the national news as an attorney general for his prosecutions of Wall Street figures. Anybody who didn't know his party affiliation probably doesn't pay attention to the news anyways. You'd have a better case if it was a person who didn't have national exposure, like a mayor or representative. Oh, so if their standards of news following don't meet your standards, who cares about them? Just shooting holes in your bullsh-- premise, that's all. As pathetic as it is, I would imagine that a decent percentage of the general population doesn't even know who their own state's governor is, let alone his or her party affiliation. Sad but definitely true. But of course, PJ thinks that everyone should know the party affiliation of a guy who's been in office for less than 18 months. It's silly to even be discussing this non-issue. Of course it is. It's always silly to discuss the blatant hypocrisy of your Dem heroes. Kinda like it's silly to discuss a former national party figure using racism to try to undermine the party's leading candidate for President. As long as the dirty tricks work to your advantage, there shouldn't be any problem at all!
Chilly Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Yes, should that make a difference? Yeah, actually. Talk radio shows are entertainment shows about the news, not news shows, and thus don't really have a responsibility to be fair (like Rush, Olbermann, etc).
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Yeah, actually. Talk radio shows are entertainment shows about the news, not news shows, and thus don't really have a responsibility to be fair (like Rush, Olbermann, etc). Oh come on man. I'm talking about bias in the media. Last I checked radio was a form of media. The title of the thread was media bias. I plugged in my post because I didn't want to start a new thread on the topic. And I'm not talking about being fair, I'm talking about providing at least accurate information.
RI Bills Fan Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Anyone notice the irony that the same people screaming "THERE IS NO MEDIA BIAS!" are the same ones screaming "WE NEED THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!!!"? Well, if the media is as blatently biased as you claim, then shouldn't you be in favor of the fairness doctrine? It's all about equal time, isn't it? This thread couldn't possibly be another shot at cherry-picking some insignificant thing and holding it up to create a strawman target for right-wing leaning wingnuts to pontificate about, could it? Nah! That couldn't possibly happen here on PPP.
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Or that they made a mistake, maybe like the dingbat you were listening to? A mistake, that's all you're going to call it? Not a remark by a brainwashed liberal weinie who thinks that war is bad. Hundreds of thousands versus 58,000 is not just a mistake.
GG Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 And I was listening to Garrison Keeler doing the Writer's Almanac and he was doing "on this date in history" and it was the anniversey of the Battle of Midway and he "informed" me that the Japanese lost seven aircraft carriers in the battle. Proof that NPR is a nationalist propaganda machine! Or that they made a mistake, maybe like the dingbat you were listening to? *We sank four carriers in that battle* If you're into comparison, riddle me this. What do you think today's press would have written about the US military conduct in WWII?
Brandon Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 The guy was in the national news as an attorney general for his prosecutions of Wall Street figures. Anybody who didn't know his party affiliation probably doesn't pay attention to the news anyways. You'd have a better case if it was a person who didn't have national exposure, like a mayor or representative. It's silly to even be discussing this non-issue. I think you're giving Eliot Spitzer too much credit. Nationally, the guy was a political nobody prior to his election as governor. Even if he was mentioned in the national news (let me guess: the NY Times), so what? How many people get their 15 minutes of fame in the national news every year? An awful lot. How many of those people are all but forgotten two weeks later? Practically all of them. Not many people outside the state of New York care enough about the attorney general up there to remember his name for any length of time. His name may ring a bell for many, but most will have no clue as to why or who he was or what he did, just like most of them probably won't remember this little incident a few years from now.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 The NY Times has literally had dozens of articles since it broke on Monday. I believe this is the first one, or the first official one. It labels him a democratic up front, in the first sentence of the third paragraph. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyregion...nd-spitzer.html ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation. The wiretap captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room, according to an affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan. The person briefed on the case and the law enforcement official identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9. Mr. Spitzer, a first term Democrat, today made a brief public appearance during which he apologized for his behavior, and described it as a “private matter.†He did not address his political future.
Recommended Posts