According to The Politico, Jefferson is "indicted" while DeLay is merely "under investigation"
In a June 21 article on the legal troubles of various members of Congress who have served on appropriations committees, The Politico reported that Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) was "recently indicted on a host of federal corruption charges." By contrast, the article described former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) as simply "under investigation over his ties to [disgraced former lobbyist Jack] Abramoff, as well as for foreign travel and other actions." The article did not mention that DeLay was actually indicted in Texas on money laundering and conspiracy charges relating to a campaign finance probe.
From the June 21 Politico article headlined "Appropriators plagued by corruption":
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who was also on the Appropriations Committee, is under investigation over his ties to Abramoff, as well as for foreign travel and other actions. DeLay has denied any wrongdoing, but several of his former aides have already pleaded guilty in the probe.
"There is not anything inherently wrong with the Appropriations Committee," said a senior Senate Democrat on the panel. "But is (the Justice Department) targeting members of the committee? That's something that needs to be asked. I am not so sure anymore."
Several appropriators and lobbyists who specialize in appropriations work point out that not all the lawmakers known to be under federal investigation serve on the appropriations panels.
Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), recently indicted on a host of federal corruption charges, served on the House Ways and Means Committee.
In a June 7 article, The Politico similarly reported that DeLay had retired from Congress, but not that he resigned after indictment, as Media Matters for America noted. Moreover, a June 5 Politico article on the political implications of Jefferson's indictment simply described DeLay as "scandal-plagued," and also baselessly suggested that the "culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill is bipartisan.
The Politico regularly publishes op-eds written by DeLay as part of its "Talking Tactics" feature. In an April 23 piece, DeLay falsely alleged that "George Soros, upset with the slight inroads conservatives have made recently, has funded an organization called Media Matters for America, led by liberal muckraker David Brock." On April 26, The Politico ran a correction of DeLay's op-ed noting that "George Soros has not funded the organization Media Matters for America."
Media Matters has also documented numerous other national news outlets that have hosted DeLay but failed to address his legal problems.
Jefferson, probably going to jail.
Delay, probably going to jail.
Politico more and more appears to be right wing talking tool. I'm sure though, that in order to get an interview, or to have Delay on their website / articles / TV shows, they probably have to agree to NOT bring up his indictment, and most probably his looming jail time. That these news programs keep not addressing Delay's indictment, just shows that they are scared of being labeled "liberal" media.
The first time I ever heard of POLITICO was during a Bush presser. The POTUS curiously took time out to ask the man who he was and who he worked for....just like a talk show host offers his guest to plug his book or movie.
That was no accident. It was indeed a plug for POLITICO pitched from the Presidential Podium.
If memory serves me, Bush asked the man twice, and I even think the POTUS repeated the name of the mag.
J- You have a point on that one. There is one poster who will attack with such viciousness if you say anything about Olbermann. Beware. However staying on topic, what does that have to do with Politico?
Doris, where did the Olbermann reference come from?
JLyons statement, but it was deleted. She just was responding to another posters statement, I saw nothing wrong with it. Not sure why MMFA took it down.
Not sure why MMFA took it down
Probably because of the poster's out-of-the-blue attempt to bring KO into this thread. I.e., completely off-topic.
Agreed it was off topic, but so are many posts on this site. Look at all the personal attacks certain posters have made against eachother lately on other threads, they remain even now up and readable.
Agreed it was off topic, but so are many posts on this site.
Many drivers who speed also go unticketed. But when you're at the head of the pack and racing ahead, don't be surprised when you get ticketed.
I dont drive much anymore , but I get the point.
So the Politico leans to the right sometimes, how does that change the overall lefty tilt the media have had since the 60's?
Check out MSNBC today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485
A few highlights:
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms
At this point, we need a journalism ethicist. How about Orville Schell? He favorably reviewed Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media?: The Truth About Bias and the News."...Schell gave $1,000 to Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Randy Cohen, who writes the syndicated column "The Ethicist" for The New York Times....gave $585 to MoveOn.org in 2004 when it was organizing get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat Bush. Cohen said he understands the Times policy and won't make donations again, but he had thought of MoveOn.org as no more out of bounds than the Boy Scouts.
He made a mistake, heh.
Sort of makes one wonder why people are looking for "conservative misinformation in the media", doesn't it?
What does this have to do with the thread?
Max41, a breakdown of votes or contributions does nothing to prove media bias. Bias is only relevant to what's actually reported in the media.
Actually Huntington, every study ever done on the subject has shown the same results.
Journalists give to Democrats overwhelmingly, and they vote for them overwhelmingly.
When all the evidence points in one direction, it means something (to most people).
The first book on all of this was 'The Media Elite' by Robert Lichter, which showed among other things that...
- 81% of journalists voted Dem between '64 and'76
- 94% voted for LBJ over Goldwater
- not once did the GOP get more than 20% of the vote from the media
US News/WReport found that 88% of White House correspondents voted Dem from '76 to '92.
Stanley Rothman and Amy Black (Public Interest journal) found that 91% of the media voted for Clinton in '92.
The Chicago Trib's Elaine Povich found the same results in a different study: in 1992, 89% of the media voted for Clinton, 7% voted Perot, and 2% voted for GHWBush.
I could do this all day, but since you won't accept that even one of these studies is valid (nor will you refute them with any studies you might--won't, can't--find) I'll sign off for now.
Just consider this. If all this evidence pointed to a conservative media bias, you'd laugh off any attempt to claim otherwise, screaming from the rooftops that there isn't even one study/survey/bit of research that shows the media overwhelmingly vote for/donate to Democrats.
And you know it.
Assuming that the journalist in question is a professional, I think the point is that you cannot make the assumption that their personal preference to one party or another has a direct correlation with bias in their reporting.
You have to show more direct proof if you want to make this claim and I agree.
Given the style of reporting over the years from the mainstream media, I do make the assumption that those who vote a certain way intentionally or unintentionally let their biases show.
Why is it that of all the people on earth whose biases might affect their work, we are always asked to believe that two of the most overwhelmingly leftist groups of people statistically, teachers/professors and journalists (show me the proof if you doubt it, and good luck finding it) are somehow magically excluded from the tendency to let bias affect their work?
If these groups were mostly GOP, and every study/survey showed it, would anyone on the left blow it of saying "well we can't assume their biases alter their work at all"? Of course not.
Hey - just recall now that you have released some tension with your little rant, that 100% of the owners of media outlets, and 97% of their editor/publishers, are nutzoid righties.
Oh, and THAT shows up in their work!
I'm not sure if that was meant to be serious, but in case it was, perhaps you wouldn't mind proving your claim with several sources.
Can you get back to me about the political leanings of the EDITORS and PUBLISHERS? Does it make sense to you that the biases of the grunts are going to be more prevalent than that of the OWNERS and BOSSES? Who decides WHAT stories get covered? Who decides what IS and isnt news? How did this liberally biased press show such unanimity for invading Iraq? For support of the Contras? For any number of policies the left was adamantly against? Also voting is a very broad standard. How are their specific views on economic issues as opposed to social issues. We can both put up examples of bias in either direction. The media is not monolithic. However the whole myth that the media is liberally biased is just that a myth.
I'm not sure why you want me to find your evidence, aside from the fact that you don't know if it exists, but here's what I found.
Editor and Publisher found the following results.
In 1992, 58% of editors (167 editors surveyed across the country) voted for Clinton while only 43% of the electorate did the same.
57% of editors voted for Clinton in 1996.
You can do the rest of your own homework. I'd bet $100 right now that you'll find that most editors supported Bush in 2000, and every other winning candidate as well. You don't want the White House to know you're against them at the top of your paper/magazine's power structure. Editors vote for winners for obvious reasons.
I do find it amusing that you've chosen to respond to evidence of bias among reporters, the people who write/deliver the news, by demanding data about the people who supervise them.
If your inference is that the only valid bias that we have to accept is bias from editors or publishers, I will enjoy reading that. Laughter is good for us all.
Max, I'm not arguing with the studies. Journalists are generally people who read, pay attention to current events, and naturally have a tendency to be critical thinkers. Very unlikely that they'd be Republicans.
The point you're trying to make, with no backup, is that this proves media bias.You've typed a lot of words, but have exposed nothing except your own assumptions and bias.
Some of those who gave to Democrats and liberal causes work for the Wall Street Journal. And we all know what a pinko, left wing rag that is.
The difference is the leftist tilt of the media doesnt exist. Showing that a few journalists gave money to Democrats and praised a well written book which makes the point that your first statement here is nothing more than repitition of a talking point without real substance doesnt prove a thing. He was right its a good book. I have it two feet away from me right now. Not even a good try.
So show me the survey or study that demonstrates that the media vote GOP most of the time, or donate to the right 87% of the time. You'd better have more than one survey/study since there are many, many examples of research proving the point you don't like very much.
I look forward to seeing your evidence.
Your argument is:
Assumption 1: Most professional journalists vote Democratic.
Assumption 2: Voting Democratic causes a bias in the kinds and ways news stories are reported.
Conclusion: News stories and news reporting is slanted Democratic (using assumptions 1 and 2).
You cite polls to support your first assumption but have never attempted to support your second assumption. Perhaps you should indicate how you arrived at the second assumption.
I dont have to since it isnt relevant. Journalists are supposed to be objective. Show me the leanings of the owners and editors. I addressed this already. I dont care how reporters vote that is NOT any sort of proof of a liberal media bias
Then you have made it known to us all that debating with you is pointless.
You just said that the evidence that backs you up is valid, while the evidence that doesn't is not valid.
If I wanted to debate a 6 year old kid, I'd find a playground and bring along a Barney the dinosaur doll.
Media owners and publishers are far and away more often conservative Republicans. Moneyed executives typically are, with a few exceptions.
They don't have a professional requirement that regardless of their own personal political leanings, they be unbiased.
Journalists, however, do have that professional requirement. Some are better than others at honoring that commitment, and some news groups, like FoxNews, does not encourage that professional behavior. FoxNews encourages many of their staff to be partisan for the Republicans. Murdock has admitted this and it's clear from the behavior of many of the journalists there.
If Fox News is the only biased news organization to you, you have apparently never watched NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or MSNBC.
Max, I also heard some further info on this study of a very small sample of journalists, saying that it included music, sports and many other non-political writers.
Just something else to keep in mind when swallowing statistics whole.
Since my point flew in one ear and out your other, let me try again.
Journalists have a professional responsibility to not allow whatever personal biases they have affect their reporting.
Fox News does not enforce that professional ethic. In fact, their boss has said so.
You have no evidence besides your personal bias that any other group has discarded their professional standards the way that FoxNews has. Their bias is undeniable. The fact that Fox has an undeniable bias doesn't mean that the others have a bias too.
That's your invalid talking point coming out of your butthole there, numbskull!
Did I miss something?
Yeah the censors are out in full force today.
Well the only thing that it relates to is that it actually should be Worst Person in the World. this Politico seems to be one biased organization.
But are they biased? Have you read them?
I have. And it appears to be biased in towards the conservative side of the agenda.
Have you read Politico?
Yes and I do not see them biased.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I say.
In my opinion they are biased and being used as force for the GOP Machine against the Democratic Candidates.
Also, see this information about the Politico itself:
"We hear incessantly about how this group or that group is funded by George Soros, as though that fact, by itself, proves the group's political affiliations. But those groups do not purport to be nonpartisan newspapers or sources of news. The Politico claims exactly that. Surely it is notable that those who created The Politico, who are funding it, and who are in charge of its operations, are long-time Republican operatives and those firmly implanted in right-wing circles."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Politico
So Politico is financed and run by former Reagan-ites, and a media mogul. Sure does "sound" un-biased (which they claim to be) to me... (Psst.. That's sarcasm by the way)
First, Wikipedia is not a source.
Check Hillary's bio for proof of that. The section entitled "controversies" is one sentence long and tells you nothing. Republican politicians don't get the same inattention to controversy.
Second, if the founders/financiers of a website automatically indicate bias, then Media Matters has some explaining to do.
No they dont. They admit to a bias. They cover ONLY conservative media just like the MRC covers only liberal media
So they "only" cover Fox News and the Washington Times?
They must get bored a lot.
They do hang to the right. HAve you actually read th site? They are as blatant but there is a lot of bias some of the time.
Somewhat OT, but I think bias is fine, well-nigh unavoidable, in fact.
I just wish commentary sites would be more clear about their biases, as MMfA (generally) is.
Should have said " aren't as blatant"
All I said was that Politico seems to be the target today , and I am sure we will have a stotry tommorow that Olbermann named them worst person in the World. I am not sure why I was censored. Who knows , I guess I am not allowed to talk about Olbermann?
So now we've got MMFA moving from an Obama supporter, to a HIllary supporter, and now they're a Politico attacker?
Maybe these guys just print these stories, and don't expect to get called out on them, and lo and behold, someone tries to hold them accountable for the information that they print, or don't print.
You seem to do this a lot. Just to clear things up.
How is this article from MMFA in accurate?
If it's not inaccurate, are you just mad that there are multiple articles about politico?
If you feel bad for them how come you are not debating the "specific" content of the article?
I will try and answer
How is this article from MMFA in accurate?
I did not say it was, all i said was that they were the target today of MMFA stories.
If it's not inaccurate, are you just mad that there are multiple articles about politico?
Not mad at all. I think its great to have stories about other media outlets , more power to us all.
If you feel bad for them how come you are not debating the "specific" content of the article?
I do not feel bad for Politico. I am sure everyone there is doing just fine.
At least now we know how you feel. Thanks for responding.
Thanks for asking ;-)
So then when mulitple examples of media misinformation come from a single source they should just pick ONE and ignore the rest?
Sue, Are you sure it was you who was censured? I may not agree with some of the things you say, but I can't say I've seen anything you've wrote that would call for a censuring. You might have been the victim of a mass delete.
Bringing up Olbermann in this thread is off topic and looks like an attempt to change the subject and derail the topic.
But did sue bring it up? I didn't see it, I thought someone else started it.
No I did not bring it up .
Olbermann needs to be discussed. If 4 people stop watching his show, his ratings will go down 37%.
Then bring him up in an Olbermann thread. When Shakespear starts getting higher ratings than American Idol your second point will BE a point until then it isnt.
I didnt mean to specifically site her. I was only saying that was a resonable reason to delete comments about him
One would like to think the truth would win out in this matter. One truth being that Delay was indiced way before Jefferson.
This story is a great example of "lawyerese". Delay has not been indictied, but is merely under investigation, on the Federal level, while Jefferson was indicted on the Federal level. You just have to know what the meaning of "is is."
As side notes, Delay resigned following his indictment and Jefferson is still in Congress. Also, Delay was indicted over 2 years ago and yet no formal charges have been filed or a court date set. Is Mr. Earle's plate too full?
Another soon-to-be-truth that for now is my opinion is that Delay won't have to go anywhere near a jail cell.
The preponderance of evidence against Jefferson however is pretty severe.
He is toast.
Sueeld,
All misinformers are targets everyday. What is the big deal? They spread misinformation and MMFA either calls you on it or they don't. But to suggest that this "news" outlet is a target. Did they misinform or not? Olberman discussions are over on the DARK SIDE
This seems to be more and more common lately. If there are 10 items on 10 different subjects, each thread has at least one poster asking why MMFA is so obsessed with the subject of that particular thread.
Weird.Like these people get focused on what they're looking at that moment, and the rest of the universe disappears.
I do not recall asking why they were obsessed? If I did please point it out.
It's a tactic of right wingers: can't defend the message, attack the messenger.
What messenger was attacked, and who is the right winger?
I know this is off topic, but I wasn't aware until today that you had another OReilly chart. Nice work HBL.
Hey King, I haven't done one lately.You must have gone to the boneyard.
Note that the reporter is Bresnahan again. The one who falsely reported that Harry Reid criticized General Petraeus along with General Pace.
Bresnahan seems to be in the tank for Republican party spin.
Hmm...
So MMFA is obsessed with Politico, O'Reilly, Savage etc...
They are a shill for Hillary, Edwards, Obama etc...
I'm wondering what the posters who make these charges don't understand about MMFA targeting "conservative" misinformation. MMFA admits bias, which is why I don't sole-source them. However, they're usually factual.
I have a theory as to why MMFA irritates some posters; MMFA openly admits their bias. It's a brash affront to the Fox-style "hide your bias" sensability. It's too honest for them.
Politico operates on the premise that "Matt Drudge rules our world." That's an accurate quote from one of their founders, I've forgotten which one. And Drudge, as we all know, plays it right down the middle.
You can't question the Drudge Fedora.
I don't; it's fedorable.
Bush and Gonzales tainted the DOJ for the purpose of fixing the 2008 election. The plan was to harrasse the oppositions with phony charges and feed the public red herrings.
Doesn't anyone find it odd that out of all the crooked politicians in office the FBI was only able to video taped and hand over marked money to a member of the Democratic Party and yet the FBI couldn't do the same to the likes of Abraham and associates, Cunningham, Delay and all of the other long list of Republican crooks. Makes one wonder.
conservatives have pointed out that many reporters donated to Democrats, but have failed to cite studies proving that the substance of their work is biased towards Democrats.
I don't know why MMFA gave us the email tblake@thepolitico.com as contact information to this history, when it was John Bresnahan who wrote it. His contact page is [link to www.politico.com]
The comments section of mediamatters has become a total joke. It is not unusual to see 50 comments on abortion in a thread about stem cell research, or 30 comments in a row about Hillary Clinton in a thread about Rudolph Giuliani's views on gay civil rights.
Can you idiots stick to the issue being discussed?
THE POLITICO IS BIASED SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
Well if you're going to call me an idiot, I'd have to say that while Randy Moss will be an attractive target for Brady, I'm not so sure the Pats defense will be able to keep guys like Roethlisberger and Manning in check for very long.
This is typical of Politico: Never let facts get in the way of a good story.