Fox News gave slim coverage to Sen. Craig story
SUMMARY: From 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET on August 27, Fox News devoted only 3 minutes and
47 seconds to segments discussing Sen. Larry Craig's lewd-conduct arrest. By contrast, MSNBC aired 8 minutes and 26
seconds of coverage on the story, while CNN aired 20 minutes and 38
seconds.
From 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET on August 27, Fox News devoted only 3 minutes and 47 seconds to segments discussing Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) June 11 arrest during an investigation of "lewd conduct" in the men's public restroom at a Minnesota airport and his subsequent guilty plea to charges of disorderly conduct. By contrast, during the same six-hour period, MSNBC devoted 8 minutes and 26 seconds to coverage of Craig's arrest, while CNN devoted 20 minutes and 38 seconds of coverage to the story.
As an August 27 Roll Call article reported, Craig was arrested on June 11 in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in the restroom. Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court on August 8, paid more than $500.00 in fines and fees, and was given one year of probation. Following the Roll Call report, Craig issued a formal statement:
"At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.
"I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously."
As Media Matters for America documented, Craig has a record of staunch opposition to gay-rights issues and legislation.
Media Matters reviewed the programming on Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN between the hours of 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET on August 27 and calculated the amount of coverage devoted to Craig's June 11 arrest and subsequent guilty plea. Only news segments were analyzed; previews and teasers were not included in this review.
- 5 p.m. ET hour: MSNBC was the first of the three cable networks to report on the story. At approximately 5:14 p.m., national correspondent David Shuster cited the Roll Call article and reported the response from Craig's spokesman, who called the incident a "he said/he said misunderstanding." Shuster's report lasted 1 minute and 15 seconds. CNN first covered the story near the end of the 5 p.m. hour of The Situation Room with a 1 minute and 30 second report by contributor Carol Costello. Fox News also briefly mentioned Craig's arrest and subsequent guilty plea near the end of the 5 p.m. hour of The Big Story with John Gibson.
- 6 p.m. ET hour: MSNBC's Tucker devoted 1 minute and 36 seconds to a panel discussion of Craig's arrest, while CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight twice reported on the story for a total of 3 minutes and 7 seconds. Fox also included two brief segments on the story, each under a minute in length.
- 7 p.m. ET hour: MSNBC rebroadcast the 5 p.m. ET edition of Hardball, including Shuster's original report. On Fox News, The Fox Report with Shepherd Smith devoted 1 minute and 35 seconds to the story. By contrast, CNN's The Situation Room devoted 11 minutes and 43 seconds to coverage of Craig's arrest, including the news that Craig had resigned from a position on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's (R) presidential campaign committee in Idaho.
- 8 p.m. ET hour: MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann devoted 1 minute and 7 seconds to Craig's arrest. On Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor with guest host Michelle Malkin did not cover the story, but a newsbreak did devote 28 seconds to the story. CNN's Out in the Open devoted 3 minutes 48 seconds to Craig's arrest, with host Rick Sanchez noting that "this is not what we planned to start this newscast with, but this is a developing story that's now looking like it could possibly turn into a bombshell."
- 9 p.m. ET hour: Only MSNBC Live covered the story, devoting 3 minutes and 13 seconds to Craig's arrest.
- 10 p.m. ET hour: Only CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 covered Craig's arrest.
MSNBC:
| Hour (ET) | Timestamp at start of segment | Timestamp at end of segment | Length of segment |
| 5 p.m. | 14 min. 15 sec. | 15 min. 30 sec. | 1 min. 15 sec. |
| 6 p.m. | 41 min. 31 sec. | 43 min. 7 sec. | 1 min. 36 sec. |
| 7 p.m. | 14 min. 30 sec. | 15 min. 45 sec. | 1 min. 15 sec. |
| 8 p.m. | 24 min. 24 sec. | 25 min. 31 sec. | 1 min. 7 sec. |
| 9 p.m. | 0 min. 33 sec. | 3 min. 46 sec. | 3 min. 13 sec. |
| 10 p.m. | NO COVERAGE | NO COVERAGE | NO COVERAGE |
| TOTAL: | 8 min. 26 sec. |
CNN:
| Hour (ET) | Timestamp at start of segment | Timestamp at end of segment | Length of segment |
| 5 p.m. | 56 min. 37 sec. | 58 min. 7 sec. | 1 min. 30 sec. |
| 6 p.m. | 5 min. 43 sec. | 6 min. 48 sec. | 1 min. 5 sec. |
| 31 min. 5 sec. | 33 min. 7 sec. | 2 min. 2 sec. | |
| 7 p.m. | 1 min. 3 sec. | 3 min. 5 sec. | 2 min. 2 sec. |
| 28 min. 39 sec. | 37 min. 49 sec. | 9 min. 10 sec. | |
| 49 min. 10 sec. | 49 min. 41 sec. | 31 sec. | |
| 8 p.m. | 10 min. 43 sec. | 14 min. 31 sec. | 3 min. 48 sec. |
| 9 p.m. | NO COVERAGE | NO COVERAGE | NO COVERAGE |
| 10 p.m. | 41 min. 37 sec. | 42 min. 7 sec. | 30 sec. |
| TOTAL: | 20 min. 38 sec. |
Fox News:
| Hour (ET) | Timestamp at start of segment | Timestamp at end of segment | Length of segment |
| 5 p.m. | 53 min. 31 sec. | 54 min. 10 sec. | 39 sec. |
| 6 p.m. | 7 min. 13 sec. | 7 min. 50 sec. | 37 sec. |
| 37 min. 2 sec. | 37 min. 30 sec. | 28 sec. | |
| 7 p.m. | 4 min. 53 sec. | 6 min. 00 sec. | 1 min. 7 sec. |
| 59 min. 12 sec. | 59 min. 40 sec. | 28 sec. | |
| 8 p.m. | 34 min. 12 sec. | 34 min. 40 sec. | 28 sec. |
| 9 p.m. | NO COVERAGE | NO COVERAGE | NO COVERAGE |
| 10 p.m. | NO COVERAGE | NO COVERAGE | NO COVERAGE |
| TOTAL: | 3 min. 47 sec. |
So finally Fox News does the RIGHT thing by not covering this ridiculous intrusion into a person's private life, and MMFA hammers them for it?? This story should have gotten a total of 1 seconds on all the networks combined! Who gives a sh*t what he tried to do in a public bathroom--that goes for ALL people.
My point is Shep Smith is doing it now , in major detail. On the FOX Report.
I think I am just not down with anyone reaching under the stall and stroking my foot. Know what I mean?
i guess observer doesn't get it. the people who do give a s--t about this kind of stuff are the kind of people who vote for guys like craig.
Uninterested Observer, the Republican'ts were extremely interested in stories on Dems. and the Clintons private lives. It's always big, important news.
Today the Foxie Propaganda Channel doesn't think this story is newsworthy! Now if you show me a person who is shocked with that, I'll show you a person who must be living in a closet.
The Uninteresting Observer should be ashamed of him or herself. He knows exactly what's going on here. He should be asking for forgiveness for the high crime of dishonesty and a double standard behavior on what is newsworthy.
"I'll show you a person who must be living in a closet. " --Sam
Sam, I just had to say, that was one of the best unintentional (I think) puns I have ever read. Is that person living in a closet Representative Craig ;)?
Good post!
Thank You Very Much Bergboy:
Senator Craig is living in stalls these days.
It was an intentional Pun. Every single word was very much planned to expose that observer for being dishonest.
Another RepubliCan't bites the dust.
Sam I Am
Well done, Sam, as you were my brother!
Who gives a sh*t what he tried to do in a public bathroom--that goes for ALL people.
Well for one thing some things that can be done in a public bathroom are against the law.
Yes, but exactly what did Craig do that was illegal? I mean, I'd live to nail the guy, but seductice signals and footsies?-- since when did that become lewd conduct?
I've seen worse things among straights.
Now, if only the cop had waited till Craig pulled it out! That would have been a story!
"I mean, I'd live to nail the guy"
Uh...
WARNING: I tried to be as gentle as possible in describing a few things in this comment, but there were a few terms I could not avoid. If I offend anyone out there, I apologize. - wzwriter
Apparantly, Larry Craig was displaying several signals that are used to indicate his interest in lewd behavior.
I'm not gay, but I know from gay friends that there are visual signs they use to indicate their interest in particular sexual activities. For example, a handkerchief sticking out of your back pocket means you're interested in anal sex - one side means you want to give, the other means you want receive. And if you're straight and ever find yourself in a gay bar, never lick your lips - that's a signal that means you're looking to give someone oral sex. The foot tapping, the foot into the next stall, and the hand movements were all probably generally-accepted signals within the gay community that those of us who are straight are unfamiliar with.
It's just as if he walked up to a prostitute leaning against a lamppost and asked "How much?" He didn't have to actually ENGAGE in the lewd behavior - he merely had to indicate his interest.
Yesterday Tommy and some others talked about coverage of this story is only being done because the story is titillating which I totally disagree with. There are two major aspects to this story in my opinion.
1) FIRST AND FOREMOST you have a lawmaker breaking the law.
2.) You have a politician whose public stances are the typical social conservative anti-gay, pro-morals schict while he engages in behavior that he has deemed immoral, anyway you look at it the man makes laws and policy that effects the nation but he evidently believes he doesn't have to follow the laws and policies he makes, talk about being an elitist. What he did was a violation of the public trust. And of course there’s the hypocrisy factor, the man pretends to be on a mission to stamp out the non-existent homosexual menace like it was a plaque or something attacking the family while HE ACTIVELY hunts anonymous sex in an old dirty public restrooms. You know if I live to be one hundred I will never understand the DC voters sending Marion Berry back to his office after he violating the law and showed the poorest of judgment. Why you would want someone like that leading you or representing you I do not know. If the people of ID send this lawbreaker with his poor judgment back to DC it will be a repeat of that. But I believe his own party is about to throw him under the bus. They want this dude out of dodge. I’m sure Craig is humiliated as is he wife and this is a painful punishment in its self but I believe Craig is going to get a taste of the ostracism many Gays suffer from people thought to friends. Maybe this is a divine lesson for him, who knows. That said I wish this man no ill.And it looks like we have a lawmaker who was looking for special treatment. Why else (when he was asked to produce his driver's license) would he have pulled out one of his business cards that identify him as a Senator and say "Whay do you think about that?"
I think Larry Craig thought that was a "Get Out of Jail Free" card....
The GOP is desperately trying to rebuild their house of cards, their "we're best for defense," "we're best for the economy," and "we're the family values guys" image ... and these gusts of wind keep knocking the cards flat.
There's only so much the rightwing media can do to keep this drumbeat of devastating stories from public view.
The GOP have it all; hypocritical homophobic homosexuals, closet pedophiles, and morality-spouting adulterers. You think we've heard about all of them? Larry Flynt says he has 300 of these phonies and perverts documented, and he's keeping his powder dry until closer to the election.
The GOP posing as our "moral leaders" is in ashes, folks. They have been exposed, and there's no putting that KY back in the tube.
If only it were considered a "MORAL" issue to needlessly and fraudulently place our troops in harm's way, getting them killed and maimed for no good reason. Ah, well. Even in the "personal behavior" department, the GOP have proven immoral, hoist on their own "Clinton petard" as it were. Fitting.
Imagine for a moment if this would have been Tom Daschel. Can you imagine what kind of media fireworks would have been set off? What would old Rush and Sean have to say about that? They would have to pull out their Big Big Deep Voice to lecture us all...and that woman Coulter? The mind whirls...
You don't have to imagine anymore. All of the shows are covering this story in great detail with lots of airtime. This thread now appears to be MMFA whining unnecessarily.
Craig is a lying sack of turd. He was involved with the page scandal back in theearly 80s, and now he's been tied to complaints as far back as the 60s.
Notice how vehemently the supposed neo-con press is ripping Craig. I wonder how the mainstream media would do if this were a dem.
I doubt that the "neo-con press" is ripping Craig for his hypocrisy. That's the real issue here. Not that he's gay.
Salon had an article that looked at the winger blogosphere and compared their posts about Craig before the last election, when it was rumored he was gay, and the posts now that he has effectively outed himself. The results weren't surprising. Before the election, the story was "Oh, this is just rumor, and besides, it's rumors about his private life." They attacked the guy who came forward with the story back then.
Now, because he's gay, those same blogs are calling for his resignation. Because he's gay. Despicable.
Compassionate conservatives. Feh. Republicans first, Americans last.
Show me a blog that wants him out because he's gay. Every conservative article or show I've seen covering this issue wants him out because he has exposed himself as a slimeball and was caught in a police sting. NOT a good thing for a Senate career. I've not seen a single "he should resign because he's gay" article.
on the other hand, the republican party had no problem paying the legal bills of a party big wig who was convicted of suppressing votes on election day in 2002. see link.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-wh/2005/aug/11/081101319.html
When you campaign on your values and morals being righteous and your opponents' being immoral, then you deserve to be hammered for this type of indiscretion. This guy has been living a lie his whole life because of Republican Party politics. He knew that being himself would nullify him from representing the folks of Idaho. That is a shame, and that is the result of the hate and division necessary to win an election as a Republican candidate.
"This guy has been living a lie his whole life because of Republican Party politics."
I doubt that. He's hiding his own sexual urges because he is ashamed of them. I'm sure his wife isn;'t proud of this...if he was acting like who he reallyis, he wouldn't be married.
Yea observer, you must have been really anoyed with the whole Clinton scandal. Especially considering how much time folks at FOX focused on that. Heck, they STILL talk about it whenever they can. What's your take on the way Craig has been a staunch opponent of gay rights? You know, gay people who want to have real families and be good, productive citizens and stuff. Maybe he felt he wouldn't have as many pervs to get off with in public bathrooms if they're settling down and getting married? Family Values can be so confusing when you're a guilt-ridden gay-bashing closeted gay I guess. Oh, and how wonderful is it to go to the john at the airport and run into some old dudes getting it on in the stalls? Savory huh? Well, that's just their business I guess. Anyway, thanks for your post. The insights from the right are always so well thought out and helpful.
I guess it wouldn't matter what this creature does in his spare time if he wasn't a paid public employee who is part of a group of creatures who take the high moral ground in public. This isn't about "outing" a homosexual. This is about hypocrisy of the highest order and brings his judgement and crediiblity to make law in the country into the crosshairs.
This case has made me consider the bigger picture concerning Right-Wing, Conservative, Christian Republicans: They probably join up with the most restrictive groups they can find in order to keep their urges under control. And if he was a Friend of Mitt's, he's no doubt a Mormon to boot.
Here in Utah, I never worry about living next door to drinkers or smokers or gamblers. I worry about the up-tight guy next door who attends church and spouts scriptural marketing phrases and looks down his nose at me and my family.
Shep Smith is covering it as I write. Calling it a "Senator Sex Sting"
what about the fact they gave it less than twenty percent of the coverage that cnn gave it last night?
Perhaps because there are more than five stories that the news should be talking about in each time slot.
Oh... I suppose you're going to suggest that they started covering the Iraq war now?
Now Shep Smith is going over the senate ethics committee. Still calling it a "Senator Sex Sting"
I'm sure they'll get around to putting a "D" after his name if it ever gets put up at all.
Now now Julia, have a little more faith...oh never mind you're probably right ;-)
Craig was a nasty, bad, naughty boy. Did anybody see that tape of his in the Clinton years? So funny.
I didn't see it but I can imagine he was being a judgemental you know what.
Juliajayne, I saw that. Joe Scarborough joked about how he was sure that Craig was getting turned on when he keep saying nasty boy, nasty boy. It was funny
Senator Craig is a sick peeping tom
He was probably abused by his mom
so he tries to get back
by peering through stall cracks
as he hopes to apply his lip balm!
Does this honestly surprise anyone here, that Fox is hardly covering this?
And how much time would Fox be devoting to this story if Craig was a democrat? Easy answer, TONS more time.
Of course. But I'm still troubled about it all. Can somebody explain how allegedly seductive signals and playing footsie automatically constitutes lewd conduct?
Straights do it all the time in public places. I guess only when gays do it's it's illegal?
Somebody explain, please.
The question should be if Senator Craig did nothing wrong why plead guilty.
The footsie signal according to police, was the "standard" signal to let your stall partner know you were available and ready to get busy.
Yes, but so what?
Straight couples play footsies in bars all the time, and whisper sweet nothings about nasty behavior, but that doesn't mean cops arrest them because they're going to get it on right there-- even if the bar is well known for lewd behavior, which some are.
It just seems to me that mere "signals" that cops think are culpable do not automatically constitute a crime, no matter where they are. Only with gays, they do....
In reading the officers report they had several complaints regarding lewd behavior in the men's room and had made several arrests. Senator Craig was observed by the undercover officer peeking through the crack in the stall door for a few minutes before going into the stall next door. To my knowledge when a straight couple want to get busy in a men/woman's room they get busy period. They don't play footsie in separate stalls and give hand signals under the door of their separate stall.
key word. 'Couples'.
This was not a couple...this is two steps away from 'glory hole goodness'.
No, the word "couples" didn't mean anything special. It's true that gay people are singled out for behavior that straights would never be bothered about.
Carlile
You guys are bending over backwards (no pun intended) to defend the indefensible. It is illegal to have sex in a public place. It doesn’t matter if you’re strait, gay, married, single, or a polygamist. It is also illegal to sell and solicit sex for compensation. This restroom was under surveillance because of prostitution activity. I don't know about you but I don't want to be exposed to this kind of behavior when I use a public restroom. MOreover it is outrageous to have children exposed to this. Now I could care less what people do in the privacy of their homes the key word here being privacy and I don’t even mind the existence of regulated commercial sex operations in certain districts; but I don’t want to be forced to see or hear sexual activity occurring while I’m obeying the law and using the public restroom for it’s intended purpose. These guys and gals that want to use public rest rooms for this have no right to force this on others. Take your tricks home or to a hotel like a decent hooker.It is illegal because religious zealot homophobic legislators who voted just as Craig did made it illegal.
Fox is way too busy distorting what the Democratic presidential candidates are saying to cover any actual political news.
And you thought making up reality as you go along was easy didn't you?
If Fox showed a video of a condom being put on a cucumber when Obama supported age appropriate sex ed what kind of video do they think should accompany this story?
Perhaps something with a little soft-shoe or tap-dancing?
Actually, I agree with INTERESTEDOBSERVER insofar as there was no "crime" in what he did in the crapper.
However, every bit of ridicule and scorn is well deserved for his hypocrisy.
If Fox showed a video of a condom being put on a cucumber when Obama supported age appropriate sex ed what kind of video do they think should accompany this story?
Footage from Brokeback Mountain?
:-)
If you've watched MSNBC, you know what the "Liberal Media"'s talking point is: "Clinton, Foley, Vitter, now Craig: What's happening to our politicians?" I think Chris Matthews mentioned Clinton more often than he mentioned Craig in his segment ABOUT CRAIG today.
Which of these things does not quite belong?
Clinton: Consensual Sex with an adult
Foley: Trolling for sex with minors
Vitter: Engaging in sex with prostitutes
Craig: Lewd behavior in public places.
Yep, it's a non-partisan issue. Of course it is.
Which of these things does not quite belong?
Clinton: Consensual Sex with an adult
Foley: Trolling for sex with minors
Vitter: Engaging in sex with prostitutes
Craig: Lewd behavior in public places.
Yep, it's a non-partisan issue. Of course it is.
jjamele, is that question gonna appear on the SAT's ? ;-)
From what I've heard thus far they [media] are trying to lump Clinton in with the others by calling this an Ethics issue.
Romney just did the same thing.
Exactly, because that's the ONLY way to bring Clinton into this. If you look at it as a CRIMINAL matter, you kind of have to leave Clinton out, because CLINTON'S AFFAIR WITH LEWINSKY WASN'T A CRIME.
But the Media is playing Let's Ignore the Criminal Aspect and look at this as a Morals Issue. That way, they get to pretend it's nonpartisan. Everybody's Dirty. People get to complain that the media is making "too much of this," because it's a Morals Issue. If you treat it as a Criminal matter, you kind of have to cover it. And that's not what they really want to do.
Clinton had more problems than just "that woman".
It appears Craig has more problems than "that woman" too.
At least he doesn't have the blood of 3700 Americans (and counting) and who knows how many innocent Iraqis (because we aren't counting) on his hands.
The only real problem Clinton had was a blood-thirsty opposition Congress that was more concerned with politics than taking care of this country.
Jeter, haven't you heard. It's a scandal when it involves Clinton. It's ethics when it involves Vitter, Foley and Craig.
jjamele & Pearlene,
As soon as I heard Romney & the media include Clinton, I thought, wow the spin has begun.
Amazing how that works. Everyone on cue.
If we're gonna make this an ethics issue, then Bush belongs in the list for lying to take us to war, lying to keep us in the midst of a civil war, neglecting his own citizens in the aftermath of Katrina, and putting a defender of torture in as the head of the Justice Department.
Ethics?
It's against the law to solicit sex for money.
Craig entered a guilty plea to a crime.
This is a criminal matter.
While it seems totally obvious what Craig was up to, and I have no doubts that he was trolling for sex, I'm not aware of any allegations that he was looking to pay for sex nor that it was beyond the doubt an illegal act that he was up to.
I wouldn't give two sh*ts that he was trolling for gay sex, Marv... if he wasn't also basing his political career on being a Family Values, anti-gay marriage right wing homophobe.
I'm totally on board with calling a hypocrite a hypocrite -- not to mention a few other names that this message board won't allow me to use. =)
But I wasn't aware of him being charged with solicitation. I thought he was arrested for lewd behavior, and charged and pleaded out to something like public disturbance. Never was "paying for sex" in the mix, to my understanding. I'm open to corrections, though.
Bitter, I heard that the airport was under surveillance for prostitution activity. But I did wonder why the undercover officer didn't take it further than this you know tap back and signal how much or whatever. Either way what he was attempting to do was illegal because it is illegal to have sex in a public place like a public restroom.
Sure. But I don't think he was charged with "paying for sex" which is what I was responding to. Nail the guy to the wall for whatever he's done, and use it politically because the guy is obviously a lying hypocrite. But base it on the facts. No need to trump up the story in this case. It's juicy enough on its own.
I read the report Bitter so yeah I know he wasn’t charged with offering money for sex but what the report described was and attempt to solicit sex. The undercover officer said this was routinely happening in violation of the law in this public restroom. But you’re correct no money was exchanged and Craig was arrested after his frantic signaling BUT isn’t this generally the case that money gets exchanged. Now excuse me I’m know expert in bathroom sex solicitations, I’ve never had another women solicit me for sex in the restroom.
Well, I do have a wide stance thanks to my genetically enhanced thunder thighs, but I too am lacking in much in the way of knowledge with bathroom sex solicitation.
Mostly, though, I was just responding to/correcting the post above that read
Ethics?
It's against the law to solicit sex for money.
Craig entered a guilty plea to a crime.
This is a criminal matter.
Craig might have been willing to pay, or maybe he was just trolling for something casual. Either way, the FACT is that he wasn't charged with that, and that was my main point.
Well, that, and I wanted to bring everyone up to speed on my wide stance.
I love how after he pleaded guilty he announced to everyone that he regreted it. As if we are going to buy into the fact he just pleaded guilty to get it over with. We all know this man is guilty....and a homo.
There seems to be an epidemic of closeted gay Republicans. Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, "Bob" Allen and now Craig. If the GOP was more accepting of alternative lifestyles, these men could live their lives as they were genetically predisposed to do. Sadly, they wouldn't have careers in public service with the homophobes inhabiting red-state America.
To those who believe that no crime was committed, here is a question for you.
If there is no crime, why did the senator plead guilty?
This was no "sting" searching for a republican senator. The police received reports of lewd behavior in the men's bathroom. An undercover police officer was sent in, was hit on by the senator.
Jeter, Tommy, Solon (and any other straight male) here is a question for you:
If you where an anti-gay homophobic senator from one of the only two states to give Pres. Bushie positive approval ratings, would you plead guilty to charges that you were trying to have sex with an undercover male police officer?
would you plead guilty to charges that you were trying to have sex with an undercover male police officer?
Not bloody likely!
I'd have fought the charges, as I'm certain anyone wrongly accused would have.
Craig is basically full of it.
What? You aren't buying his "wide stance" defense?
Yes, he claimed the footsies were because he uses a wide stance.
Actually Leather....I thought he was going to make the "scary black men" or "fear of lightening" defenses like Bob Allen in Florida.
(Although how being scared of black men causes one to offer a black undercover police officer money for sex, is beyond me. Must be a "straight" thing?)
That was the funniest excuse ever!!!
I noticed at one point in Faux's coverage of the story (can't remember which show or who the host was) they had two experts on to discuss the case. Surprisingly, neither of them tried to blatantly softpedal the guilty plea ( aguilty plea may have a way of doing that) but the male expert DID claim that the arresting officer in Minneapolis was "obviously a Democrat". He said it with no apparent sarcasm, nor did the host even acknowledge the outrageousness of the statement.
Craig is the one who started playing politics during the arrest. MSN reported that the arresting officer took Craig into a private room to arrest Craig. Craig tried to throw his weight around, handing the arresting officer his business card which said he is a Senator. Craig then said, "What do you think about that?". I'd say Craig was the one who turned the situation political - not the arresting officer.
I loved the Fox coverage of Larry Craig's statement to the press from Boise. CNN and MSNBC ran live footage. Fox News said "We are waiting for the press conference to begin, as soon as it does, we will cutaway to it" even though Larry was already 30 seconds into his statement. Fox cutaway instead to a commercial, while the others ran live feeds. When Fox came back from ad time, they "cutaway" to an AUDIO ONLY feed of Craig concluding his speech. Apparently Fox can't afford live visual feeds from Boise, Idaho.
Of course that was before news broke that the Republican leadership was throwing Craig to the wolves, after which Fox began to air more "news."
Martha.
You're not trying to suggest that Faux News is being HYPOCRITICAL here are you? Why... look at their RATINGS!!!
I'm still waiting for Fox to air a video with this story equivalent to the "condom on a cucumber" video they ran with the Obama story.
The Columbus Dispatch ran an AP story about Sen. Craig that didn't mention that he was either GOP/Republican or even a U.S. Senator.
Today's Dispatch had an article that mentioned Craig as a Senator from Idaho, but not a word about him being a Republican. Not one damn word.
I suspect that if Craig were a Democrat, the Dispatch would have mentioned that as often as possible. Nice double standard. Typical hypocritical Republicans.
I suspect that if Craig were a Democrat
Though in that case they'd have to generate the outrage over nothing. Though I'm not pleased with many Democratic politicians appeasing one small step for gay rights approaches, they're not a bunch of Bible thumpin', pretender champions of so-called family values like this liar.
Much as in Clinton's case, it'd be a big story about nothing. And as in the Clinton case, most people would understand that.
Craig doesn't have anyone to fear but his own constituency. He lied to them. And I suspect his future opponents won't let his constituency forget that.
(I misread your post. Lemme finish my coffee...)
Oops. They did mention it on into the article, just not the US Senator part.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I'd love to see the Media spend at least half this much energy on investigating the reasons we invaded Iraq.
While I enjoy seeing a Christofascist family values hyporcrite bite the dust, the only reason this is getting so much coverage is because it's about sex. The Media Whores love a good sex scandal.
Last night, the O'Reilly Factor devoted a 10 minute segment to the issue. Not only that, but it is all over Foxnews.com. They aren't downplaying this and not giving it attention. Placing the story on page 37 as the NY Times did with the terror threat at JFK months ago is downplaying the issue and not fairly reporting.
So the numbers above are faked?
I didn't say their numbers were "fake". I stated that Fox did in fact give it coverage. They didn't ignore it all together. And they did in fact run a 10 minute segment the following evening. They have given it its due attention, and they aren't showing favorites here. They interviewed the man who published evidence against Craig in the Idaho newspaper, and simply because Fox waited to run a longer segment one night later doesn't indicate to me that they are ignoring the issue and not giving it fair attention. This isn't misinformation. Fox didn't misinform anyone of anything.
So the numbers aren't faked, they demonstrate that Fox gave this story significantly less time than the other two major cable news outlets, and didn't touch it at all during the 9 and 10pm primetime hours, BUT they're giving the story its due.
Right.
That they started in on it a day later isn't the point of the story. They took a day to figure out how to spin this into something other than the outing of a hypocrite that it is. Another day or two, and we'll here how it was Clinton's fault.
I'm not claiming that he isn't a hypocrite, however, I didn't get the impression from the Fox segment I viewed that they were trying to spin this issue. That is what I viewed, and I just found it a little silly that MMFA was comparing time slots and segment lengths when it was in fact covered. Now, the same argument could be made that the other networks, who are arguably left leaning, made too much of the story and tried to drive the point home that this man is a scumbag, a hypocrite, and most importantly a Republican senator. I'm saying he made a fool of himself without the aid of any media outlet, and anyone can see that you can't spin it too terribly much when he already plead quilty to the charge.
People are concerned about intrusions into Craig's private life? Isn't that what the GOP has done to gays & lesbians with their anti-gay rhetoric and polices? Karma anyone?
People are concerned about intrusions into Craig's private life? What??? Isn't that what the GOP has been doing to gays & lesbians with their anti-gay rhetoric and policies since Bush and crew took office? Karma anyone? How does it feel to be scrutinized, Larry?
Well, that's just the thing. If you believe in staying out of private lives so much and as passionately as you seem, then why aren't you adhering to your own advice and morals and get off this guy's back? I'm not picking any side here, but if you truly believe what you preach, then lay off the man and out of his private life.
Except that it wasn't private. It was in a PUBLIC restroom, the arrest record is public, and he is a public official that makes other peoples' private lives into a public issue.
Good point, this was an act in a public place. He made a big mistake on many levels. He should be punished for this no doubt. I wonder why the specifics of these "lewd acts" weren't disclosed so we had more of an idea of what he engaged in doing. That would be helpful. I have an honest question though, are we as quick to pardon or forgive Craig as we were to Clinton? Just a question. Does he get to go away with no scratches from this?
Everyone did for the most part stay off this guy's back as long as he kept his private life private. There have been rumors, apparently, about this guy for years -- decades even.
He outed himself. And it wouldn't even be much of a story if he wasn't such a bigoted jerk toward gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_n2P0cpFKM
8 MIN LAST NIGHT AND ALL I HAD TO DO WAS TYPE FOX NEWS ON YOU TUBE ARE YOU GOING TO CORRECT YOUR POST ? ?? i THINK YOU SHOULD STOP THIS SITE NOW
MMFA's data was taken from August 27th. The youtube segment you sited was from August 28th.
So, what's your point? How much coverage did the other media outlets give the issue on Aug. 28th? If MMFA is so concerned that this is getting the same amount of coverage, why only compare segments of one day. Fox devoted a lengthy segment on the 28th, but I didn't see extended segments on the other outlets on that day. Where are the time comparisons for this day? It just seems silly to say that Fox didn't deem this as important, because they didn't devote enough time to satisfy MMFA.