GMA reported that FBI, IRS agents raided Sen. Stevens' home but didn't ID him as Republican
During the July 31 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, anchor Chris Cuomo reported that "FBI and IRS agents have visited the home of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens," adding, "The agents are reportedly focusing on records related to the Stevens[es]' relationship with a contractor jailed in a corruption investigation." But Cuomo did not identify Stevens as a Republican. In fact, Stevens is the longest-serving senator in the history of the Republican Party. A July 31 New York Times article reported that Stevens is the "only senator known to be under criminal investigation, and he continues to wield power on the Appropriations Committee, which controls how the federal budget is distributed."
According to a July 31 Washington Post article, Stevens' home was raided as part of an investigation concerning "his ties to an Alaska energy services company, Veco, whose chief executive [Bill J. Allen] pleaded guilty in early May to a bribery scheme involving state lawmakers." The Times article reported that in 2000, Allen helped Stevens renovate his Girdwood, Alaska, home and that "contractors have said that bills for their work went to VECO before they were passed on to Mr. Stevens." The article went on to report that Stevens' son Ben was one of six state lawmakers whose homes were also raided last year as part of an investigation into their relationships with Allen and Veco and that at the time, Ben Stevens was president of the Alaska state Senate.
From the July 31 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
CUOMO: FBI and IRS agents have visited the home of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. The agents are reportedly focusing on records related to the Stevens' relationship with a contractor jailed in a corruption investigation. Stevens is under federal investigation for a renovation project on his house back in 2000. That project was overseen by the imprisoned contractor. Stevens has had no comment on the searches.
Yeah that Chris Cuomo is a raging Conservative. HIs father was a raging Republican talking point also.
Sad to hear about Robin Roberts and her breast Cancer, I wish her nothing but the best.
EMPTY TALKING HEAD?
Cuomo is simply reading the script his corporate masters hand him.
I wonder if his father is furious at him? Or his NYS Attorney General Brother?
Who cares? I fail to see how that matters one bit to Cuomo's omission. Would it be okay if his dad or bro weren't mad at him?
Sure, just wondering how they feel that a fellow family member is acting like Rush Limbaugh.
When did Cuomo start having sex with Dominican boywhores?
I do not understand your question.
That makes two of us then.
Did MMFA claim this was intentional? I seem to have missed that part.
This was a two-fer by Sueeld...a false claim in one sentence followed by a sarcastic - but completely irrelevant - reference to Mario Cuomo's politics in the next. By that non-sense, then Ron Reagan Jr can't be liberal, right?
I am not sure what you are getting at with Ron Reagan of course he can be liberal. I just could not believe that Cuomo would report the news the way FOX would. Why is this wrong for me to bring up? Or is this strawmans argument from you?
"I just could not believe that Cuomo would report the news the way FOX would."--sue
Your insipid comment is duly noted. Thanks for coming.
Hannity is up for it though. He's comparing a state house Demo reps illicite work for chiropractors as a comparible crime. Though what Ted may be charged with is unclear.
Personally, I don't think it's fair for Senator Stevens to claim to be the longest serving senator of the Republican party. His first couple of years were following an appointment to the senate, but even with those two years he and Strom Thurmond are essentially tied (1968-present for Stevens versus 1964-2003 for Thurmond) as Republicans. If you take into account the time Thurmond served as a Democratic senator, he's got an extra ten years (1954-1964) on Stevens. It's just bad form, in my opinion to try to steal the thunder of the poor old dead racist.
By the way, not identifying Stevens as a Republican doesn't qualify as conservative misinformation. Identifying him as a Democrat would (or at least could) qualify as conservative misinformation.
It depends how you define conservative misinformation. MMFA defines it as "news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda".
Omitting Stevens' political affiliation tends to forward the conservative agenda (even if inadvertantly) at least moreso than mentioning it would be likely to do in this instance.
"news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda"
The trick about this definition is that it has to do more than forward the conservative agenda (intentionally or not). It must also be one or more of the following: inaccurate, unreliable, or lacking credibility. Unless one can prove one of those, this doesn't even qualify based on MMFA's definition. Therefore, the identification of this as misinformation is dubious. Which shouldn't really surprise anyone.
But it is inaccurate. Just as leaving out the name of the offender or the state they are from would be inaccurate. In leaving out the party affiliation however, is how it forwards conservative misinformation.
It's not inaccurate at all. If you wanted a slightly stonger but nonetheless weak argument, it would be that it's an incomplete and therefore unreliable report. That's a much better argument. It still doesn't hold a ton of water though because you then have to determine what it means to be reliable. Seeing as the report is both accurate and honest, it's difficult to make the unequivocal assertion that by not providing a party affiliation they're somehow being unreliable. The credibility argument is a similar one. Personally, I think they're both weak.
Not doing unnecessary damage to the conservative cause is not the same as forwarding the conservative cause.
The point, as they made in the other thread, is that they point out Rep Jefferson's affiliation with the Democratic Party, but not Stevens' status as a Republican.
And my point is that other thread has nothing to do with this thread. There are obvious problems with that other thread, but its strength lies in MMFA actually being able to document what it claims to be complaining about (even though the argument is weakened by the fact that Senator Stevens is identified again and again as a Republican in the CNN piece).
Personally, I'm divided on this one. When reporting policy issues, I think the news media has an obligation to report a congressman's party affiliation, because it helps the public understand where the policy comes from. Personal issues, I don't know. Sure it might appeal to the schadenfreude of opposition party members, but I would hardly say it is obligatory.
Also, well-known senators don't need their party identified all the time. McCain, Clinton, and Obama come to mind.That said, I don't know that Sen. Stevens is quite as well-known to the public. Perhaps he should be. He's from a small state, but the man's been in office nearly 40 years. Plus he's made some rather dubious headlines (see "Bridge to Nowhere," "Series of Tubes,").
I'm not sure this constitutes "Conservative Misinformation." If anything, I think Libs dodged a bullet here. It wouldn't surprise me to see him labeled as a Democrat. The media has a tendancy to "accidentally" do that from time to time when tied to negative news (Mark Foley, Lincoln Chafee, Osama Bin Laden). I think we Libs should consider this one a moral victory since, to my knowledge, Steven has yet to be incorrectly labeled as a Democrat.
Something tells me that, regardless of obvious corruption, the "Joe Pa" of the U.S. Senate isn't going anywhere until he's good and ready to leave.
Faux News will get right on that.
It depends if under the same circumstances they identify Dems but not Repubs then it would. If they just dont identify parties under those circumstances then I would agree
I guess we have to make sure the media always mentions the political party , that is more important than even the fact that these people represent a state and Americans first but i guess that is irrelevant.
"I guess we have to make sure the media always mentions the political party , that is more important than even the fact that these people represent a state and Americans first but i guess that is irrelevant."
I suppose you are right about that. Since Democrats DO represent America and their State and Republicans represent only themselves, perhaps ommision was just another way of saying republican?
He is the same senator that got public money for the now famous bridge to nowhere in Alaske. If he hadn't attracted attention to himself for that, the current scandal may have gone unnoticed and Cuomo would not have to portray his ignorance publicly to so many, about Sen Stevens party affiliation.
it is Good Morning America they target people with low Education Levels , this does not suprise me at all. Look at Diane Sawyer she is not a brain.
Sorry MMFA, but I gotta give this a big so what. MOst people in the country will assume its a rep in the first place anyway.
MMFA reports media distortions. Omitting crucial data is a form of distortion to manipulate public opinion. if Sen Stevens was a democrat, FOX Newsmanipulators Company would report this as an " outrage " and Hannity would have his privates wrapped around the axle for days..
If I may say so, that's sort of a weak rationalization. MMFA is in the business (theoretically) of identifying misinformation. While the omission of a party affiliation could theoretically allow for someone to draw a false conclusion, it does not lead them to that conclusion. Therefore, there's not even an implied distortion of the story, and the reporter cannot be accused in this instance of misinforming the public.
The is why news should strive to be informative.
Look, I'm not saying he couldn't have done--or that he shouldn't have included a party affiliation. I'm saying the argument that states he's guilty of misinforming the public is simply false.
"I'm saying the argument that states he's guilty of misinforming the public is simply false."--breakerbreaker
I disagree. Leaving out that information is misinformative as it can be argued that some people may glean incorrect conclusions from it as you have previously admitted. A lack of precision can be misinformative. Your argument is simply weak. Calling it "false" is simply your opinion. Others can reasonably disagree with you. You don't seem to be even willing to consider the mere possibility that other opinions (,but perhaps with different premises) are even equally valid as your own.
Your argument is coming across as quite arrogant. I don't know if that is intentional or not. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I disagree.
You do now but you didn't before.
Leaving out that information is misinformative as it can be argued that some people may glean incorrect conclusions from it as you have previously admitted.
Incorrect conclusions are not drawn from the lack of information. Incorrect conclusions are drawn from the preconceptions of the ignorant masses. In other words, this omission is not leading (or misleading) anybody to think he is not a Republican. Anyone who comes away with that understanding should look to themselves as the culprit. Could GMA have taken steps to further ensure everyone seeing the report new unequivocally the senator was a Republican? Sure. Is the omission of the affiliation on the face of things either misleading or inaccurate? No.
Calling it "false" is simply your opinion.
No it's not. It's based on the actual definition of the word misinformation. Look it up if you'd like. You won't find it on the MMFA mission statement.
Others can reasonably disagree with you.
Only to a point. I think we passed that point sometime last night.
You don't seem to be even willing to consider the mere possibility that other opinions (,but perhaps with different premises) are even equally valid as your own.
Not everybody's opinion is valid. Sometimes people are just wrong. People disagreeing with me here are simply wrong.
Your argument is coming across as quite arrogant. I don't know if that is intentional or not. I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
I know, I'm impossible to deal with when I know I'm right.
"Incorrect conclusions are not drawn from the lack of information. Incorrect conclusions are drawn from the preconceptions of the ignorant masses. In other words, this omission is not leading (or misleading) anybody to think he is not a Republican. Anyone who comes away with that understanding should look to themselves as the culprit."--breakerbreaker
I agree with you almost completely. The problem is that we are quite obviously aware that leaving off the information will likely lead some people to mislead themselves.
However, it doesn't completely remove the cause and effect relationship. The problem with your argument is that it does not absolve the news organization from liability as to the consequence caused by the lack of information.
If a paint manufacturer doesn't correctly label or tell you there is lead in their paint and you get sick or die from it, it doesn't absolve the manufacturer from their liabilty even though you wrongly presumed there wasn't any lead in the paint. There is an expectation you were supplied with the necessary unbiased and objective information to act appropriately.
Hopefully even if you find fault with some part of the analogy, you get the main point that can be easily expressed in any number of ways.
Maybe you're right. MMFA could refine their argument to GMA reported that FBI, IRS agents raided Sen. Stevens' home but didn't ID him as Republican - needlessly causing some viewers to mislead themselves. Perhaps that is a bit too wordy and nuanced, though. I mean the original implication really remains unchanged, but if it makes you happy. How about it?
"No it's not. It's based on the actual definition of the word misinformation. Look it up if you'd like. You won't find it on the MMFA mission statement."
You helped me out above. The misinformation that this article implicitly is referring to must be the viewers who GMA likely caused to mislead themselves when GMA omitted the party affiliation of Ted Stevens in their story.
Thanks for the help.
The distortion ocurrs when the party affiliation is identified for some and not for others, depending on the perceived severity of the infraction, thereby not being homogeneous. There are thousands turning 18 every day adding to the voter blocks and if I may submit, easily influenced by media misinformation. And this started with the myth the republicans are going to clean up Washington and restore ethics and bipartisanship. I am guessing the democrats aren't insulated from this either, simply by being democrats.
The distortion ocurrs when the party affiliation is identified for some and not for others, depending on the perceived severity of the infraction, thereby not being homogeneous.
In this particular instance, since there's only one person identified, your argument is toothless. You're complaining about something that's just not occuring here. So by your own definition, there's not distortion.
There are thousands turning 18 every day adding to the voter blocks and if I may submit, easily influenced by media misinformation. And this started with the myth the republicans are going to clean up Washington and restore ethics and bipartisanship. I am guessing the democrats aren't insulated from this either, simply by being democrats.
There's no argument here. Just a rationalization for indignation. That's the kind of thinking MMFA lives on.
I think you know you have to observe all media, as I do, to reach the conclusion I stated. The party hacks populate all stations and distribute information to benefit their own agenda. If in fact Cuomo was the only source, your indignation at my post would be legitimate. But he is not, he just happened to be the only one at that moment in history. I remember not too long ago when Cunningham got caught up in bribery, MMFA did document some cable news never mentioned he was a republican.
Please don't infer any indignation on my part from anything you said. I'm not indignant. I'm making a very specific point about a very specific news item. One dubiously identified by MMFA as misinformation.
I do infer a bit of indignation on your part (not directed at me, I hope), and your explanation for it is the one I would have anticipated. I understand the argument you're presenting, but I have to admit that it works a lot better in some instances than in other. This one is not one of the times where it works.
MMFA's mission is such where they can rationalize any instance of a reporter not saying exactly what they want him to say into being some form of misinformation that furthers the conservative agenda.
I'm curious about why MMFA never states as part of their mission statement furthering the progressive agenda. Since it's clearly the primary mission of the site, why do you think it never shows up? I mean, if they didn't hold so tightly to the supposed altruism of their mission, they wouldn't look so dishonest all of the time by labeling things what they're not.
This may be splitting hairs, but over on the other post about this same subject, they point out that Wolf Blitzer Identified Rep Jefferson as a Democrat, then referred to Duke Cunningham(R) without mentioning his party affiliation. He also failed to mention Sen Stevens' party affiliation. This post seems to just be a follow-up to that one.
Actually, this thread appeared prior to the CNN piece. And if you read carefully, the CNN thread makes a telling, albeit brief admission: that Stevens was in fact repeatedly identified as a Republican by the reporters and by the graphics on screen. MMFA was hoping you would miss that point. They were also hoping that you would draw the connection where none exists from that thread to this one.
Both of the claims have problems. This was the first thread. And the weakest.
What you are describing is merely a difference of opinion concerning the relevance of party affiliation. Although, personally, I don't find it all that relevant, it would be better to provide that information for the audience to decide for themselves.
Your argument that the news organization isn't responsible for false conclusions that stem from omissions seems a justification for sloppy news standards. A good news organization should leave no room for doubt about the facts to the best of their ability.
What you are describing is merely a difference of opinion concerning the relevance of party affiliation. Although, personally, I don't find it all that relevant, it would be better to provide that information for the audience to decide for themselves.
I'm not arguing about whether or not it's relevant. I'm not arguing about whether or not it's sloppy reporting. I'm arguing about whether or not it qualifies as misinformation to omit an elected officials party affiliation in a single paragraph report. Could he have done it? Clearly. Should he have done it? It certainly wouldn't have hurt his report. Was his report inaccurate? No. Unreliable? I don't think so. Less than credible? I've seen no evidence that it was. Does his omission of the affiliation further the conservative agenda? Hardly. Does it hurt the conservative agenda? I see this as the strongest of the arguments so far. Oddly enough, nobody's making it.
Your argument that the news organization isn't responsible for false conclusions that stem from omissions seems a justification for sloppy news standards. A good news organization should leave no room for doubt about the facts to the best of their ability.
Sorry, I copied the entire comment so that I could try and address it. Forgot to delete your second paragraph.
Implicitly you are arguing whether party affiliation is relevant or not. I am arguing that its omission in this case is misinformative because party affiliation is relevant. By arguing that it isn't misinformative, you are arguing that it isn't relevant as well - regarding my opinion.
Maybe I put the cart before the horse in assuming you would put that together.
It does appear to be quite obvious that Republicans would do better to have the affiliation omitted when one of their members is allegedly involved in a scandal. I don't know why that isn't obvious to you. You are welcome to your opinion.
Implicitly you are arguing whether party affiliation is relevant or not.
This is just false. I've stated outright on more than one occasion in this and the related talkback that whether the issue is relevant or not is neither here nor there. One could easily argue its relevance, and I find it hard to dismiss that notion. I'm arguing that this doesn't qualify as misinforming the public.
I am arguing that its omission in this case is misinformative because party affiliation is relevant.
Actually, this goes in direct contrast with your previous comment that you didn't find it all that relevant. If you want to change your argument for the purposes of continuing this debate, be my guest. I'm not sure how much energy I have left though.
By arguing that it isn't misinformative, you are arguing that it isn't relevant as well - regarding my opinion.
Well, I just have to argue that your interpretation of misinformation is a little too broad. Withholding or omitting party affiliation is neither misleading nor inaccurate. Seeing as misinformation has to fall into one of those two categories, this report is simply not misinformation.
It does appear to be quite obvious that Republicans would do better to have the affiliation omitted when one of their members is allegedly involved in a scandal. I don't know why that isn't obvious to you. You are welcome to your opinion.
Thanks, I'm always happy to know that I'm allowed to have an opinion (especially when I'm right). I'm not arguing that providing a party affiliation would not hurt the party's persona. I'm arguing that you cannot argue the party's persona is not already damaged with the omitted affiliation. This is not a good story for Republicans. It's not a good story for conservatives. The mere reporting of the story hurts them. Would revealing the party affiliation hurt them more? Sure. I'm just asking whether hurting Republicans as a whole is the mission of MMFA. If the answer's no, then what are we arguing about? If the answer is yes, then perhaps MMFA should alter their definition of conservative misinformation to include for stories that do not cause an adequate amount of damage to the conservative agenda.
"Actually, this goes in direct contrast with your previous comment that you didn't find it all that relevant. If you want to change your argument for the purposes of continuing this debate, be my guest. I'm not sure how much energy I have left though."--breakerbreaker
I thought I made my position clear enough above that I could simplify it without confusion. My personal opinion is that it is irrelevant, but in the case of the news report, it should have been left in for the viewers to decide for themselves. Leaving it out is making that decision for them.
Sorry I wasn't entirely clear.
"Would revealing the party affiliation hurt them more? Sure. I'm just asking whether hurting Republicans as a whole is the mission of MMFA. If the answer's no, then what are we arguing about? If the answer is yes, then perhaps MMFA should alter their definition of conservative misinformation to include for stories that do not cause an adequate amount of damage to the conservative agenda."--breakerbreaker
I see your point, but it is not like MMFA is asking media outlets to make things up. They are simply asking the media to consitantly give credit where it is due (as is the media's usual custom). I can't imagine a problem with that. I would expect the same thing from the other side of the ideological divide.
"Well, I just have to argue that your interpretation of misinformation is a little too broad."--breakerbreaker
And it should be noted I believe yours too narrow.
If only there was a way to find out which one of us was using a more accurate definition.
You seem to think there is only one universal definition for that word. Besides you already helped me out above.
Stevens says he paid every bill that was presented to him, which begs the obvious follow-up question.
Whenever one hears about a Congressman under investigation, one assumes its a Republican anyway.
As famous philosopher/Teacher Lao Tzu (D-China) once said:
"The highest virtue one can exercise is to accept the responsibility of discovering and transmitting the whole truth."
Is this a criticism of MMFA? If so, I'm totally behind you.
er...got your irony filter on high, do you?
Your own arguments regarding the CNN piece proves why this is a valid issue in this case. While MMFA may have been a bit over zealous in their Wolf Blitzer piece -- can't argue that --they are spot on this time, especially when you consider ABC's and related holdings corporate donations to the Bush campaigns and the "Road to 9/11" mini-whatever. They are not exactly in the impartial column.
Good Morning America presents itself as a "news" show they should be held to those standards. To say otherwise is avdocate openly the destruction of our democracy as honest information is the one of the few things that makes representative democracy possible. You can't have it both ways for democracy but against or are willing to accept false or semi-accurate information.
I'm gonna skip past all of the circumstantial accusations as well as the conclusions you draw from those accusations as I don't think they're as pertinent to the situation as you do. If you think I'm avoiding your point, call me on it, and I will address it in due course.
Instead, I'm going to focus on what I feel is a rather ironic argument anyone could make in defense of MMFA:
You can't have it both ways for democracy but against or are willing to accept false or semi-accurate information.
Aside from the fact that nothing in this report could accurately be described as either 'false' or 'semi-accurate', I think your words here drive to the heart of what's wrong with MMFA. It's not part of the mission to be entirely accurate. What you describe as overzealous reporting in the CNN piece, I describe as the typical actions of MMFA editors and bloggers holding fast to an incredibly distorted interpretation of their already bizarre mission statement: A statement that allows them to determine the definition of misinformation and furthermore allows them to accept, condone, and even spread misinformation as long as it can be determined to not help the conservative agenda.
I've addressed this problem in other talkbacks, and have been accused of faulting MMFA for having a bias towards liberalism. But that's not even what they have. They have a bias against conservativism. One that allows them to distort and decontextualize media fragments, not because they help the conservative agenda, but because they don't hurt the conservative agenda enough.
I'm not arguing all of their work is dishonest. It's not difficult to honestly make Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck (et cetera) look like disingenuous, mean-spirited tools. The problem for MMFA reveals itself when they try to get ambitious. When they try and actually pinpoint conservative bias or misinformation with any report or fragment of a journalistic report they don't like. A lot of times, there's just not a lot there, and what is there, requires quite a bit of suspension of disbelief. Which goes against what the people who come here claim to be looking for.
Aside from the fact that nothing in this report could accurately be described as either 'false' or 'semi-accurate'
If it's unclear, I'm addressing the GMA report (Not MMFA's critique).
After several years of non-stop R scandals, media thinks it only needs to identify the lonely Ds who get caught. R is implied (except in the cases of mi-identification, drats there is a vast RW conspiracy).
I guess GMA just didn't want the story to be redundant.
The point of the MMFA piece, is that the public will lose the perception of the Repugnants as "the party of corruption" if the media conveniently omit the (R) as the rascals are raided, indicted, impeached, convicted, and jailed. This is one time I have split loyalties: we shoulda been building more jails for the past six years, per the Repugnants; and we shoulda been busily releasing all those drug users, per the radical wing of the Democrats. Thus, we would have room for the procession of corrupt Repugnants even this political DOJ cannot help identifying for us - or, at least more room, if the procession is as endless as it seems.
This point becomes a factor as the 2008 elections near, for despite the collaboration of the Corporate media with the Repugnants, the pointer on the scale of public view of the Repugnants remains currently as "Anybody But . . ."
MMFA is doing - at least, attempting - the job of ensuring that such information is published, allowing at least the blogosphere to reverberate with the appropriate castigation of the Repugnants - and the horse they rode in on.
I was listening to the reports about Sen. Stevens on both CNN and Faux Noise today as I was setting in the recption area at my local Army Medical Clinic. They have alternating TVs in the waiting area, one on CNN the other on Faux Noise. There is nothing but the best for our War Fighters and their families. No sarcasm intended.
However, neither “news” network identified Sen. Stevens as a Republican. Our local newspapers didn’t identify him as a Republican either. What the hell is the big secret? Of course I had my suspicions but I expected that MMFA would be on it so just waited until I could get home and head to MMFA and get the REAL story. At least I know there is one source where I can get the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. How much longer is the MSM going to continue to coddle and cover for the Republicans?
He said exasperated!!
Now that was a stupid question, wasn’t it? Roll eyes!!
Who cares? If I did not wipe my butt would the general public care what political party I'm with...................
Only if the party itself relied on the concept of "a dirty butt" as the fundament of virtuous behaviour - then it would be kinda important to know your party affiliation prior to shaking your (left) hand - or voting for you.