Friday, December 26, 2008

What's Missing From This Article?

This is not a new story, and it has been done before, but I am going to keep writing on it until we see some changes.

CNN ran a story Poll: Illinois governor named naughtiest politician of 2008. What's interesting about this article is not what's in it but what is not.

I do not usually repost entire articles but I wanted the readers to see the article in it's entirety to better prove the point. Reading this, can you guess what is missing?

(CNN) -- A new national poll suggests Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich could be on the top of Santa's naughty list.

Fifty-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Wednesday said Blagojevich, who has been arrested on corruption charges, was the naughtiest politician in 2008.

Blagojevich, accused of attempting to sell President-elect Barack Obama's former Senate seat, has said he has done nothing wrong and plans to fight the allegations.

The poll also found 23 percent believed former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer should get the nod, followed by 19 percent for former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Spitzer resigned in March after it was revealed he was Client No. 9 in a high-end prostitution ring. In November, prosecutors announced they would not be bringing criminal charges against Spitzer.

Edwards, who had been considered a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, admitted in August to having an extramarital affair with former campaign staffer Rielle Hunter. The former North Carolina senator also denied he was the father of Hunter's then-newborn baby.

CNN polling director Keating Holland said while Blagojevich being tops in the survey may be due to the fact his arrest occurred more recently than the transgressions of the others, but he said there may be another reason. iReport.com: Do you trust your political leaders?

"Americans typically take a much dimmer view of corruption than of sex scandals, since the former is a violation of the public trust and the latter is usually considered more of a private matter," he said.

I know my readers are intelligent and therefore know that you have already spotted the missing element, party affiliation of most of the members of this poll. (Hint: they're all Democrats). The only exception is this line who had been considered a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, This the only time the word Democrat is mentioned in the entire article. No mention of which party Spitzer or Blagojevich are affiliated with. The one mention, John Edwards, was an after thought. The article never actually called him a Democrat.

Just for fun I researched some articles about other politicians on CNN.com. Let's contrast and compare some articles about Republicans. I have listed the title and link to the article and a short excerpt from each. The differences in reporting on the two parties is subtle, see if you can pick it up.

Contractor gets 12 years for bribing lawmaker

in exchange for the Southern California Republican's help...

Florida closes Foley investigation without charges

Authorities were investigating whether the Florida Republican,...

Sen. Stevens: I'm innocent and not convicted

Despite his felony conviction this week for filing false U.S. Senate financial disclosure forms, Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska insisted he was innocent and vowed not to step down.

Court denies Sen. Craig's effort to withdraw sex-sting plea

The Idaho Republican was arrested in the...

Just for kicks, I included a bonus link. This is a story about former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson.

Supreme Court rejects appeal in seizure of lawmaker's papers

This is how CNN listed the party affiliation: Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana. This is the only time Mr. William "cold cash" Jefferson is listed as a Democrat in the article.

I want to be perfectly clear, I did not cherry-pick these articles. I did a simple search of the names on the CNN site search engine and randomly picked an article for each. I did not reject articles that did not support my blog, I took the first ones I clicked on. They all consistently reported party affiliation prominently for Republicans and subtly, if at all, for Democrats.

For more of this type of research, this is a good site. Media Research Center

8 comments:

CJ said...

The media bias totally baffles my mind! Thanks for your research!

Obob said...

and this shocks me not. The media does "internal" studies to clear themselves. So did obama. I see a trend. Had the GOP or GW done so, there would be a massive outcry and ridicule.
No, there is no mention of party affiliation if it fits their need. Kinda pisses me off to honest

Brooke said...

LOL! So juvenile... My second-grader wouldn't get away with an "internal study" to get out of trouble, yet these arrogant jerks expect us to swallow whatever they dish out.

mksviews said...

It is done intentionally and they know they're doing it, the biased vermin. If only the public were as in tune with this as you and your readers are and they punished organizations like CNN for their bias.

Chuck said...

CJ, agreed

Obob, don't you love that the only studies they report on are the ones they do. Not the ones done by the universities that show a big bias

Brooke, Don't worry, soon we will have Congress investigating Obama. We'll get to the bottom of things then.

MK, they are punishing them. CNNis getting their lunch eaten by Fox and the NYT is hemorrhaging readers.

Z said...

THIS is the kind of thing which prompts me to remind Conservatives that it's not OUR MESSAGE that needs any cleaning up (tho I think some does) but THE MEDIA which needs cleaning up.

Who CARES what Republicans say when everything is SO biased that the public gets it skewed and relayed to them like these terrifically chosen stories of yours?

This has to stop. But, it won't...especially with obama in charge. And Soros paying the media? Maybe an exaggeration but what else COULD it be?? I swear, there has to be something that prevents Americans from lying to their own people. What will it be? Or, maybe, our schools just don't tell journalism students the REAL point behind journalism..maybe ALL profs are SO liberal that they really feel the end justifies the lying means? Hideous.

Great post, Chuck..keep it up. We ALL SHOULD. This has to stop.

Chuck said...

Who CARES what Republicans say when everything is SO biased that the public gets it skewed and relayed to them like these terrifically chosen stories of yours?

This is exactly why I think the Repubs should fight back, what do they ahve to ose? The media will attack them?

lady vengeance said...

Hello and Happy New Year, Chuck.

Due to my skeptical nature, I seldom believe much that the media spits out. As humans, reporters and journalists have their own intrinsic slant and often can't help but put their stink on things that one would expect be reported as neutral.

There's not much neutral about the media anymore, if there ever was, really.

You may chalk up this particular story coming to the attention of Americans and the world as "media bias", but it illustrates my 12/23comments on your blog quite well. It can be viewed here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/08/
america/08military.php

At least the form letter we got from Georgie had our names on it...guess he's got a better secretary than the one at the place the Army contracted out to do their fill-in-the-blank condolence letters. Hmpf.

I'm not rubbing any Conservative noses in things here, Chuck. I'm not blaming the Army at all. Mistakes happen, I get it.

I bring this up to remind us all--Conservatives, Liberals, Undecideds--that perhaps it's not so much "which side we're on" that is the issue at hand, but "what can we do to bring this country together?"

The media certainly does not help with that concept, and I may get labeled as a bleeding-heart Liberal by some of your readers, but that's ok. I know that I am not.

Off my soapbox for the moment. Keep up the good work.