About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC's The Note baselessly suggested double standard in media's treatment of Pelosi and Gingrich

October 24, 2006 12:26 pm ET

SUMMARY: ABC News' The Note predicted that prior to the midterm elections, the "(liberal) Old Media" will "[g]lowingly profile" House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi but "fail to describe her as 'ultra liberal' or 'an extreme liberal,' which would mirror the way [former House Speaker Newt] Gingrich was painted twelve years ago." But a Media Matters examination of coverage found that in 1994, Gingrich was treated in a similar manner to the way Pelosi is treated now.

22 Comments

The October 23 edition of ABC News' political newsletter The Note predicted that in the two weeks leading up to the November midterm elections, the "(liberal) Old Media" will "[g]lowingly profile" House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), but "fail to describe her as 'ultra liberal' or 'an extreme liberal,' which would mirror the way [former House Speaker Newt] Gingrich [R-GA] was painted twelve years ago." But while The Note suggested a double standard on the part of major news outlets, a Media Matters for America survey of the respective coverage of then-House Minority Leader Gingrich in 1994 and Pelosi in 2006 found no significant disparity in the media's treatment of each.

Coverage of Pelosi

The reporting on Pelosi over the past two months undermines The Note's prediction that media will refrain from identifying her as a liberal in the two weeks prior to Election Day. Indeed, an examination* of the coverage since September 1 -- which has included several prominent profiles of the Democratic leader -- found numerous references to Pelosi as "unabashedly liberal" and one of the "more liberal Democrats":

  • A profile in the September 4 issue of Time, referred to Pelosi's "leftward tilt" and stated that, following her ascendancy to minority leader in 2002, "many moderate Democrats castigated [her] as an out-of-touch liberal who would take the party perilously to the left." The article further reported, "Once in Congress, she was embraced especially by liberal Democrats. She opposed the Gulf War and in a 1996 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle said, 'I pride myself in being called a liberal' and 'I don't consider myself a moderate' ".
  • On the September 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer referred to Pelosi as one "of the more liberal Democrats."
  • An October 6 Associated Press article reported that Pelosi's "base is about as liberal as it gets -- San Francisco."
  • A profile of Pelosi in the October 23 issue of Newsweek described her as "unabashedly liberal." The article went on to note that she has led "opposition to the Iraq war on the House floor. She's pushed hard to roll back Bush's tax cuts. She is an ardent defender of abortion rights -- differing with members of her conservative Roman Catholic family over the subject. She's had no compunction about playing hardball politics -- going after troubled GOP counterpart Tom DeLay with a ferocity reminiscent of DeLay himself."

Moreover, news outlets have frequently reported Republicans' ongoing efforts to cast Pelosi as an extreme liberal:

  • A September 14 Associated Press article quoted a National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) spokesperson describing Pelosi as a "partisan, obstructionist San Francisco liberal."
  • A September 23 Associated Press article cited campaign materials published by the Republican National Committee that "cast Pelosi as a tax-raising, soft-on-terrorism, extreme-on-abortion, questionable-on-ethics liberal who wants the nation to 'cut-and-run' from Iraq and would focus on 'launching bitter partisan investigations' of the Bush administration, including possible impeachment hearings."
  • A September 29 USA Today article reported that Rep. Max Burns (R-GA) "derides [Pelosi] as a 'San Francisco liberal.'"
  • A September 29 Washington Post article noted Republicans' use of Pelosi in television advertising. The Post reported: "The National Republican Congressional Committee, for instance, is hitting Democrat Brad Ellsworth -- an antiabortion and anti-gun-control candidate in Indiana's 8th District -- for helping support an 'extreme liberal.'"
  • An October 20 Associated Press article quoted a separate line from the NRCC ad targeting Ellsworth: "Will Brad Ellsworth vote for liberal Democrat Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House? Ellsworth has taken money from her PAC. ... Pelosi and other Democrats want to raise your taxes, cut and run in Iraq and give amnesty to illegal immigrants."
  • On the October 20 edition of NBC's Today, national correspondent Jamie Gangel noted that critics of Pelosi charge "she is out of touch and short on substance. And Republicans love to run against her, calling Pelosi an unabashed liberal from San Francisco."
  • An October 21 Los Angeles Times profile of Pelosi reported that "Republican ad campaigns cast her as a caricature of liberal excess; depicted with eyes bulging and mouth agape, she looks like she's about to pop a blood vessel or bite somebody."
  • An October 21 Washington Post profile reported: "Throughout the campaign, Republicans have sought to scare voters by portraying Pelosi as a liberal extremist who would be weak on national security and prone to raises taxes if her party were back in control."
  • An article in the October 30 issue of U.S. News & World Report noted that "Republicans have been trying to rally their base by warning that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who would most likely become speaker of the House, is too liberal. ... If Democrats take the House, they say, expect a leftist agenda of more spending, higher taxes, and maybe even an attempt at impeaching President Bush."

Coverage of Gingrich

In the two months prior to the 1994 midterm elections, the media similarly noted Gingrich's conservatism -- though perhaps not as frequently as in their coverage of Pelosi. While an examination** of the coverage of Gingrich between September 1 and Election Day did not identify any instances in which he was specifically labeled "ultra-conservative" or an "extreme conservative" -- as The Note suggested he had been -- the media did in several cases characterize him or report others characterizing him as right-wing:

  • A September 2, 1994, New York Times article described him as a "conservative firebrand."
  • A September 1, 1994, Los Angeles Times article reported that Gingrich had been "[a] revolutionary from the day he entered the House 15 years ago."
  • A September 26, 1994, Los Angeles Times column by Ronald Brownstein asserted that one of the flaws in "The Contract with America" -- the Republican platform spearheaded by Gingrich during the 1994 campaign - "is that it takes positions too conservative in some areas (such as welfare reform) for the three dozen or so House Republican moderates. That could threaten Gingrich's capacity to move these ideas even through a GOP-controlled House."
  • An October 24, 1994, New York Times article described Gingrich as "the more conservative Republican" in comparison to then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
  • On the October 27, 1994, edition of ABC's World News Tonight, then-ABC political analyst Jeff Greenfield described Gingrich as "far more conservative than retiring Republican chief Bob Michel."
  • An article in the November 7, 1994, issue of Time reported: "All his political life, Gingrich has been perfecting his ability to disrupt the majority and move the opposition into an increasingly radical position on the right.

As with Pelosi, news outlets also quoted Democrats and progressives characterizing Gingrich as "radical" or "extreme":

  • An October 5, 1994, Associated Press article reported that Ben Jones, Gingrich's Democratic challenger in 1994, "tries to portray Gingrich as the well-funded tool of 'a far-right-wing cabal.' "
  • An October 17, 1994, Associated Press article reported that then-Vice President Al Gore described Gingrich and other Republican supporters of the "Contract with America" as advocating "a radical right-wing U turn."
  • An October 17, 1994, Associated Press article reported that "Democrats say they think Gingrich has gone too far and has exposed himself as an extreme partisan more concerned with settling political scores than with advancing legislation the country needs."
  • An October 21, 1994, Washington Post article quoted a statement in which American Federation of Government Employees president John Sturdivant warned his members, "Do you want radical conservatives such as Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) or Sen. Robert 'Mr. Filibuster' Dole (R-Kan.) controlling the ... next Congress?"
  • An October 29, 1994, Associated Press article reported that "Democrats have sought to cast the Georgia conservative as a bomb-throwing ideologue, in hopes it will scare more Democrats into turning out to vote."

* A Nexis search between September 1, 2006, and October 23, 2006, of The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Associated Press, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, and CNN using the following terms "Pelosi w/50 (liberal or left wing or far left or radical or extreme)."

** A Nexis search between September 1, 1994, and November 8, 1994, of The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Associated Press, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, and CNN using the following terms "Gingrich w/50 (conservative or right wing or far right or radical or extreme)." Neither this search nor the 2006 search included Fox News or MSNBC, since those channels did not exist in 1994.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by njguy93 (October 24, 2006 12:35 pm ET)
         

      When he called Gingrich a well-funded tool of a right-wing cabal.

      THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (October 24, 2006 1:05 pm ET)
         

      I can see the comparisons in what the two politicians wear in under garments after that I don't see any similarity. Newt is another closeted Republican whom only dates women to put up a front, how he treats women is a clear indicator.

      Newt is a Fascist whom beleives American politics are whatever he wishs it to be, and the only crimes are the ones your caught and convicted of doing.

      Pelosi is a shrewd, tough, and a sincere Democrat that will show the nation the difference in the two with her honest leadership.

      Newt lasted a couple of months in power, and could'nt avoid the closet full of sins, and obvious character issues long enough to enjoy the Chair.

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (October 24, 2006 1:36 pm ET)
           

        Whether Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker or not, and if she does, whether or not she will be effective is obviously unknown to anyone at this point. Just the fact that she has said she will not pursue Impeachment proceedings in the House must infuriate many of you, however........

        For you to resort to name calling of Gingrich while praising Pelosi is pathetic. Why do you feel it necessary in order to build up your choice, you must insult the opposition. Are you that concerned that if there will be a historical comparison someday between Gingrich and Pelosi, the only way Pelosi shines is if Gingrich is soiled?

        How desperate. Stick to the positive characteristics of Pelosi and refrain from the schoolyard insults of former House Speakers.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Scotty Johnson Sr. (October 24, 2006 2:20 pm ET)
             

          You said it. Pelosi is an unknown quantity. Gingrich is known and what we have seen is ugly. There's a reason he was drummed out as speaker. When Pelosi experiences the same, we can talk about comparisons.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (October 24, 2006 2:33 pm ET)
               

            Your quibble is with fellow Democrat Dan Grady above. He made the comparison, I just pointed out how personal insults against one's opponents to prop up your own, are products of a weak and ineffective argument.

            But then you would be quite familiar with that tactic, now wouldn't you?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Scotty Johnson Sr. (October 24, 2006 3:43 pm ET)
                 

              Calling someone a fascist is a description, not a personal insult. A personal insult is something like, "Gingrich is fat and gray with a Kermit the Frog voice"

              Glad to clear the fog on that one for you.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (October 24, 2006 4:19 pm ET)
             

          To quote Hunter S Thompson the man was a flat out knee crawling thug with the morals of a weasel on speed. I He was one of the few politicians I truly did dispise in a personal way. Pelosi on the other hand has shown no such tendency for repulsive behavior. She isnt as liberal as I am and I just dont see any reasonable basis to smear her. I dont make it personal. I dont dislike someone because of their ideology. They think different,thats fine. Their actions is what make it personal. Gingrich made it personal. Pelosi is all about the policies. Take those away and exactly what is there about her to dislike?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (October 24, 2006 4:31 pm ET)
               

            Personal insults have no place in reasonable political discourse. You and many here are the first to stomp up and down when Ann Coulter levels one of hers out there........and then say she has higher standards because she has a national voice. If you are comfortable living within those lower standards you constantly point out, then fine.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (October 24, 2006 7:03 pm ET)
                 

              YOU dont get to make distinctions for me about what belongs and what doesnt belong in discourse. I rarely if ever START the insults I am just willing to go there when provoked. Gingrich deserves no pass. HE claimed that Susan Smith killed her children because of Democrats, he sent out a memo saying when speaking of Dems use words like sick, perverted and other rude personal attacks, that makes him fair game. I do jump on Coulter for two reasons first as with Newt she started it second she does something I think MOST rational people would consider beyond the realm of reasonable discourse that is call for violence. Like when she said someone should poison Stevens creme broule or that liberals should be beat with baseball bats. When you can show me saying something similar you can get back to me.

              Perhaps YOU consider returning the serve as a lower level. I understand you think the right has the exclusive franchise on personal attacks. I consider making virtually every argument you make either a strawman or false dichotomy, locial fallacy like YOU do a lower standard. Thats me, I have my way, you have yours.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by dangrady (October 24, 2006 8:12 pm ET)
                 

              Sorry Tommy, polite political discourse was the rule when the Democrats ran the Congress. The Republicans through the rule book out, and shredded the Constitution/Bill of Rights so that polite has jumped ship long ago.

              Happy Thoughts;

              Dan Grady

              Report Abuse
          • Author by redking75687 (October 25, 2006 1:20 am ET)
               

            The top one being the fact that she's a stooge for the Israel Lobby and continues to support the war crimes for her masters at AIPAC headquarters.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by dangrady (October 24, 2006 8:08 pm ET)
             

          Geez Tommy you must be way far gone if you think standing up to a scoundrel like Newt going to get you anywhere.

          As he was delivering divorce papers to his wife's hospital bed, hours before her death, what do you think he was trying to show the us, character??

          As he was trying to consolidate K street the way Tom Delay did he got stupid and was caught playing with other people's money, and I'm not talking about a hedge fund. Why do you think this fat bag of crap ended up toss out of Congress, and lost the Speakership after masterminding THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA.( or was the CONTRACT ON AMERICA)

          Happy Thoughts;

          Dan Grady

          Report Abuse
          • Author by carlileb5935 (October 26, 2006 3:55 am ET)
               

            I don't think Gingrich's ex wife died-- she was in the hospital for, what, cancer treatment? But I can see why she might have wanted to after dealing with him.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by shoes89 (October 24, 2006 2:01 pm ET)
         

      Did anyone see that glowing, adulatory profile of Pelosi on 60 Minutes the other night? Can you imagine a Republican politician (that doesn't bash Bush or go against the administration) getting such wonderful treatment? I can't.

      MMFA's case is not very convincing.

      My 2 cents. Thank you.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (October 24, 2006 2:18 pm ET)
           

        Save your pennies, Stahl kept asking NP for a "promise" that there won't be any impeaching under her watch. Why? What kind of question is that in a "puff' piece? As I recall, Condi Rice got the white glove treatment on 60 Minutes without any of her pal Katie asking an equivalent question (ie "Can you promise that the reasons for war were correct?").

        Report Abuse
        • Author by shoes89 (October 24, 2006 2:39 pm ET)
             

          You might want to go back and look at that show again here.

          "You used your credibility to rally the American people behind this. Now it turns out there were no weapons of mass destruction. Do you regret using that?" Couric asks.

          "I don't regret at all overthrowing Saddam Hussein," she replies.

          "But that's not the question," Couric remarks.

          And another, for example:

          Asked if she would do it the same way, the secretary says, "Nobody can go back and reinvent the past. We can't do it, Katie."

          "But you can learn from your mistakes," Couric remarks.

          On Sunday, when Pelosi said impeachement was "off the table," Stahl simply asked if that was a pledge.

          A cursory look at both interviews showed that it was Pelosi, not Rice, who got the white glove. (And, gee, Pelosi's white-glove treatment was just a couple weeks before an election. How convenient!)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by MickD (October 24, 2006 2:50 pm ET)
               

            ...were about her performance in office (fair). Stahl's question to Pelosi (pledge is even stronger than promise) is based on nothing except to get it in edgewise. And there was no equivalent with Stahl sitting at Pelosi's feet gazing adoringly at her like Katie C. did when CR was playing music.

            Maybe its the relative weakness of 60 Minutes we're talking about rather than partisanship.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by Sagra (October 24, 2006 2:35 pm ET)
           

        [link to www.fair.org]

        Report Abuse
    • Author by xofpi1195 (October 24, 2006 2:45 pm ET)
         

      Is it Mark Halperin? He doesn't seem the type to froth, constipated as he may be. But there's someone among their contributors who has a distinct winger figerprint.

      (I could tell when Hilton Kramer wrote an op-ed for the NY Observer because he repeated talking points he'd made in his columns and elsewhere. Whoever posts this "liberal bias" bs leaves the same kind of mark.)

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Citizen J (October 25, 2006 12:36 pm ET)
         

      Because the FACTS are inconvenient for our baseless opinions.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.