Different press rules when covering lib Dems?
It appeared that way in when CongressDaily reported on whether Dem. Pete Stark should be the successor to Charlie Rangel on the powerful Ways and Means Committee. As Matt Stoller at OpenLeft highlighted , the article is built entirely around anonymous sources, including lots of lobbyists tossing darts at Stark:
'Journalist' Peter Cohn puts together a wholly conventional ideological hit job on Democrat Pete Stark using nine anonymous quotes or statements attributed to 'sources'. Not one single person will go on the record to discuss why the seniority system shouldn't work in the case of Stark, not one policy idea is considered in the article vis-a-vis Stark or anyone else's record, and the reader learns nothing about the tax writing committee from it other than nine anonymous sources in Congress think something. Apparently, the amorphous business community will 'go nuclear', whatever that means, Stark is gaffe-prone, but neither the public, policy, or the shift leftward in Congress as evidenced by Waxman's recent committee victory in the Energy and Commerce tussle are even referenced.
(h/t C&L )