Media Matters review: Scant media coverage of conservative blogger's arrest for anthrax scare, score of reports on liberal blogger's run-in with Allen campaign
On November 12, Reuters reported that Chad Castagana had been arrested in California for "mailing threatening letters containing a suspicious white powder to celebrities and U.S. politicians," including House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), talk show host David Letterman, Comedy Central's Daily Show host Jon Stewart, and MSNBC's Countdown host Keith Olbermann. The day after, the weblog Sadly, No! noted that Castagana was a contributor to the conservative website FreeRepublic.com and provided a link that it said was to Castagana's biography. However, the link leads to a FreeRepublic.com page that says, "This account has been banned or suspended." But despite the Associated Press' reporting on November 13 that Castagana faced "a two-count complaint of sending threats and ... hoaxes by mail," only six media outlets noted Castagana's arrest: Reuters, the AP, the Los Angeles Times, Roll Call (subscription required), USA Today, and Countdown. Moreover, in reporting on Castagana's arrest, only the AP, Roll Call and Countdown noted that, as the AP reported, "FBI agent Mary Hogan said in the affidavit that Castagana 'described himself as a compulsive voter who votes Republican, and he said that he sent the letters to specific individuals because he did not like their liberal politics.' " Neither Reuters, the Times, nor USA Today mentioned any possible motivation for Castagana's actions and none of the media reports mentioned Castagana's reported ties to FreeRepublic.com. All reports noted that the white powder was tested and found to be nonhazardous.
The scant coverage of Castagana's connection to a conservative blog in the days following his arrest stands in contrast with the extensive coverage given an incident involving a liberal blogger. Numerous media outlets reported that, at a campaign stop in Charlottesville, Virginia, University of Virginia law student Mike Stark, a blogger for Calling All Wingnuts, was tackled when he asked Sen. George F. Allen (R-VA), who lost his re-election bid to former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, whether he had spit on his first wife. A Media Matters for America review* of the three days following the incident found 14 different reports which labeled Stark a "liberal" -- including articles in the Los Angeles Times, the AP, the Chicago Tribune, and reports on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and ABC's Good Morning America. One of the four articles printed about the incident in the Richmond Times-Dispatch cited an Allen campaign press release, which stated that "Stark has a history of violent outbursts on the Daily Kos, a left-wing Web site."
As Media Matters has noted, liberal bloggers and websites have been frequent targets of media attacks. For example, Washington Post columnist David Broder addressed the YearlyKos convention by roundly dismissing "liberal bloggers," claiming that "the blogs I have scanned are heavier on vituperation of President Bush and other targets than on creative thought." Additionally, both the Daily Kos weblog and Moveon.org have been frequent targets on Fox News -- The O'Reilly Factor host Bill O'Reilly has equated giving money to MoveOn.org with donating to the Nazi Party; Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke has declared that "the MoveOn.org-Howard Dean-Daily Kos-Michael Moore left wing of the Democratic Party" is "just as nasty and mean on the left as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage"; and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes has suggested that MoveOn.org might "want to run text" of a letter by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which, among other things, suggested U.S. officials may have been involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and expressed skepticism about whether the Holocaust occurred.
* A Nexis search between October 31, 2006, and November 2, 2006, of "News, All (English, Full Text) using the following terms "Mike Stark."
Gee, a liberal blogger gets the crap beaten out of him by Allen's henchmen for daring to question der uuber is somehow the same or worse? How bout that vid from the republican convention showing a "devout" young republican repeatedly kicking a liberal woman he threw to the ground for daring to be there in the 1st place? funny how we can find numerous examples of righty tighty doing this but the libs are few and far between. Either it's that dang liberal media or reich wing republicans are too stupid to push the record button on that fancy picture phone from verizon.
Remember the Unibomber?
Many media news groups made LOTS of press about how "liberal" he was.
But this Castagna idiot? (crickets chirping)
The freepers themselves are in denial, and calling Castagna a "liberal blog plant."
Face it, the mainstream news organizations have a double standard a Borg Cube can fly through.
were a fairly big story in lots of places. now there's an arrest and it's quiet as a churchmouse.
to produce their own home grown terrorists. What will they think of next? I'd say fixing elections but there is already a lot of evidence pointing to that already.
Talk radio hosts. They regularly call for journalists to be killed. Can we please connect the dots?
And what about these radio hosts calling for the death of people on the radio? Is that okay?
For example: Is it illegal for Melanie Morgan to say this about Nancy Pelosi? "We've got a bulls-eye painted on her big laughing eyes." [link to s88172659.onlinehome.us]
Given the fact that Speaker Pelosi is now one heart beat away from the President and that they just arrested a Freeper for sending Nancy Pelosi white powder, does that count? Who should I contact? Or should I just shrug it off because Melanie Morgan is a republican and she can say anything she wants on broadcast radio?
Why hasnt the media reported on this anthrax threat and indictment for threatening the President??
Did Olbermann report this threat? I looked in his transcripts and could not find it.
The threat was also made to Tom Sullivan, a KFBK radio host and a conservative.
Interesting.
[link to sacramento.fbi.gov]
I'll file that next to the 20+ incedents of protesters getting arrested for doing nothing more than standing near the white house fence carrying signs without permission.
to some extent. I look at this as just a wacko, its not a conservative or liberal issue. There are nuts who go after both on a daily basis.
Good job finding that link Casac.
please give us details of what you claim are the common everyday biological attacks carried out by liberals?
Stop trying to pick a fight. I dont work with the FBI. If I knew who was doing it on a daily basis then I would be in another line of business.
My point is people are nuts. And nuts in general could care less about political afiliation. The nut who crashed into the WH with a plane when Pres Clinton was in office, the nut who shot at the White House when Pres Clinton was in office, the nut who shot Reagan, the 2 nuts who shot Ford. The psycho is sent anthrax in 2001.
You don't see this as a liberal or conservative issue?
Did you even read the Media Matters story?
From that story
""FBI agent Mary Hogan said in the affidavit that Castagana 'described himself as a compulsive voter who votes Republican, and he said that he sent the letters to specific individuals because he did not like their liberal politics.' "
This guy sent these letters specifically because he does not like their liberal political views!
You say that "nuts" could care less about political affiliation?
Again I ask, did you read the Media Matters story? This guy says that he sent the letters because of political affiliation!!!! Why would you then attempt to link him with "nuts" in general, and say that "nuts" in general don't care about political affliliation? This guy said that his whole purpose was derived from an attempt to frighten people who hold an opposing political view from him!!!
You are not worth my time to even respond since you are into attacking. But I will give you the benefit of the doubut
However, I agree with what you stated, I did read the article, I was merly commenting on Casac and his link.
That jerk Castangana is a nut who targeted progressives. However Casac had a link that showed a nut targeted Bush and a conservative talk show host. My statement again was "Casac has a point to some extent. And his posting what I was responding to. His posting was not a conservative or liberal issue.
It appears that both the recent story and the story from a month ago are examples of people sending fake anthrax to people based upon their political views.
Funny how that's exactly what I said, and exactly what you said was not happening!
Thats not exactly what I said, again you are wrong. I am not suprised since your blinded by hate.
Maybe its best not to converse with Sue, she will always attack with vitroil and hate, similar to what happened with the Jeter joke last week. She is truly a hateful person.
Sue is the perfect example of someone who regardless if you agree or disagree with will always attack and try to divide. She is a very hateful person, she has been totally discredited on this site . She twists words. My own belief is she is on this board to defocus from issues . If it is raining and we both say its raining, Sue will turn around and say we should have said its thundering and we are lying. She reminds me of Sean Hannity.
What is your point? Hate only comes from the right?
sure are spreading it on thick trying to blame it all on dems LOL!
One problem with your analysis is I am not a rightie . I am a leftie.
Gosh, no surprise there I guess. Sorry I scared you with real questions asking for real facts. Must be tough LOL!
Sounds like Sue?
So you dont like one question I ask and you turn negative, calling me a rightie?
Keep up the good work Sue.
Why are you playing games? First JLyon didnt say only liberals and second my point in Posting that article from the FBI is that the MSM Selectively reports stories. Its on both the left and the right. How dare you sit there and ask for who and when are liberals targeting people, when you know full well that these people who do these crimes are insane, and are criminals. What you are saying is that these crimes are strictly politically motivated, I am saying these crimes effect both sides.
You are trying to play games and attack people. Grow up and go back to class.
OF COURSE MMFA posts 'selectivly' it says so right in their statement of purpose. Do you bother to read anything? Why have you not written your local papers or your heros at FAUX to promote this story? Are you too lazy? I know nothing beyond what you linked to so I have clue who the other figures Braun mailed power too. Do you?
Sorry Sue/Zero, FAUX is not my hero network.
Try going in another door.
You make me sick with your attitude with that question. Who died and made you boss ?
Good point Casac and JLyon.
Zerosum, its people like you that are destroying the fabric of America with your partisan attacks, division and hate.
I am so glad they arrested this guy for his threatening letters and attacks, but it happens to many in the public eye as the link to the FBI statement suggests. To imply that only liberals (which I am one and very proud to be) are targets of false anthrax attacks is not only wrong, its dishonest .
Zerosum, you should be ashamed of yourself.
If questions scare you so much, then stop going on these 'tubes'
He does not cover all the news, so the fact that you cannot find a comment from him about the fake anthrax before it was discovered that it was a rightwing crazy who mailed the fake anthrax because he doesn't like the politics of the people he mailed it to is not noteworthy.
It's not noteworthy unless you are trying to distract us from the real story here. The real story is that this rightwinger threatened liberals and truthtellers with fake anthrax because they have differing political views. That's disgusting.
Thanks for your input Sue. I think you are wrong though in saying Olberman is not a newsman. I get my news from him , and I think he is a newsman. MSNBC promoted him and tweety on election night as being newsmen.
Well then, you are wrong.
A newsman reports the news. Olbermann comments upon the news stories he finds interesting. He uses news stories to create a TV show.
Olbermann is a newsman, and a damm good one.
I watch him daily and I love his rhetoric and style of delivery. Particularly when he addresses those whom he disagrees with directly. However...
Keith is no more a newsman than Bill Orally. They both have their audiences and they cater to those who watch them but it is clear what their particular biases are. Newspeople should be unbiased. (in practice, not rhetoric. Sorry Fox "News") Unfortunately there are precious few these days that can be considered "newspeople" . Olberman is entertaining and can be a source for current events but the show is more of a platform for his views and so therefore he should be considered a pundit and not a newsman.
Olbermann is a newsman, he provides the news to Americans on a nightly basis. He is the Edward Murrow of today. Murrow was a newsman, and Olbermann is the best newsman around today. He does have his own views but he also provides information and news.
I get it. You are an Olberman fan. So am I but you really need to flesh out your definition.
Keith's show contains news elements, I agree, however the gestalt of his show is not of the hard news variety. He shows blind spots that would've made Murrow cringe, no matter how much `Ole Ed would have applauded his politics.
Olberman is a very thought provoking pundit who gives insight in a very biased way. That, a newsman, does not make.
you do not seem to know what the words you are writing mean
Are you Sue? I think you are.
Washington Post columnist David Broder addressed the YearlyKos convention by roundly dismissing "liberal bloggers," claiming that "the blogs I have scanned are heavier on vituperation of President Bush and other targets than on creative thought."
Yeah, there's some harsh words for the Bush administration and their media servants on this site- that's what it's for.Generally, MMFA for one is pretty civil, and the more conservative posters here are treated as well as they treat others.
I'm not counting myself- I'm very childish and vindictive, but most people on this site, both sides, get what they give.I'm impressed every time I come to this site by the critical thinking and literacy exhibited by some regulars, not to mention the technical savvy in researching and linking info- some of yous make me hesitate to post after you.
That's my little "howdy" to this site, and posters here all over the political spectrum who make it. I don't visit that many blogs, left or right, but I can say, to anyone who agrees with Broder's comment above; Go on over to Freerepublic or newsbusters and check out the discussions.That's where "pro-choice" is "a member of the commie blood cult".
While I agree that there was some disparity in news coverage of the events, I disagree with MMFA calling Castegna a "blogger" in the same way that Mike Stark is a blogger. IMO you need your own blog to be a "blogger." I wouldn't consider myself a "blogger" just because I post comments here.
I suppose that's just semantics, and we all know how silly those are.
The Mike Stark incident probably got more coverage because there was film of the assault by Allen's goons. If there had been similar juicy video to accompany the Castegna story he probably would have gotten just as much coverage.
The reason that Mike Stark has gotten more airtime is two-fold. He ran a distasteful campaign to fraudulently attempt to get onto radio talk shows a few months ago, and then he had been harassing George Allen with irrelevant questions, one about a marriage that ended years ago, at the end of his race for Senator. I don't approve of either effort by Mike Stark. Regardless of my disapproval of his activities, he was treated badly by some goons at a campaign event, and there was video of it, and so it was covered.
But I agree with Media Matters that this story has not been covered in sufficient amounts. This guy may not be a blogger, but he is sure a rightwinger who attacked those who held liberal positions he opposed.
Mike Stark's actions were along the lines of a stalker with intent to annoy. Castegna's actions were intended to cause fear (terror) and panic. Hence Castegna's actions constitute a psycological terrorist attack. Shouldn't he therefore be covered along with all the other items of interest in our "Global War on Terror". After all, here is one terrorist who had actual day to day contact with actual American citizens. Ok, he didn't threaten REAL AMERICANS he only tried to scare liberals and Democrats. Barely citizens at all...
You mean the "liberal" New York Times did not cover the story of a man who threatened liberals and/or Democrats? Oh no, what is this world coming to? Maybe the people yelling on the street corners are right.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
...but let us not forget that Stephanie Miller got a really nasty letter forwarded to her from Alan Colmes after appearing on H&C defending Cindy Sheehan (where the moron left his name and phone number and she ended up calling him... hilarity ensued.)
And yesterday AGAIN the NY Post outed an investigation on three packages Randi Rhodes and Air America got sent to them containing suspicious powder. This time they were less snarky about it than they were with Olbermann's letters. Still, when will the media pick up this interesting uptick in threats to liberals with microphones.