http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21695912 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:12:10 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:12:10 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21702301
And regardless, that doesn't address this subtopic. Was Foley's party affiliation clearly identified and Mahoney's was not? From my recollection, was pretty clear the party of each member as the news reported the stories.
KM]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21702301 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:00:03 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21702274 That's all I was asking. If this is true, present the evidence.
If not willing to, makes the theory pretty baseless.
Typical partisan process. Nice. How come you didn't put your party affiliation next to your comment? ;)
KM]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21702274 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:55:58 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21701681 said by KoolMoe:

I would like to see direct examples of this. Here's one.

Remember Mark Foley? Of course you do. He was a Republican. The media made sure the sick things he did in his personal life were national news prior to the 2006 elections.

His replacement, Tim Mahoney, a member of the Democrat party, was accused of giving campaign money to a mistress. While these events were reported in local media in Florida, they did not make national news in most mainstream media outlets. Thankfully, the voters in this district came to their senses and voted this guy out in 2008.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21701681 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:58:13 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21701273 If you want data, go get your own. I have my data. It is not just a theory, it is a fact that I have witnessed many times in person.

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21701273 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:00:18 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21701096
You're the one making the claim; it's on your shoulders to back it up. If you're not willing to, that's fine...but it also speaks to the validity of your theory.

I don't believe this theory, as I stated, so plainly not my burden to prove yours.
KM]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21701096 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:52:27 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21699949 said by N3OGH:

Pennsylvania is rather corrupt, but I think that's by osmosis.
LMAO. Who are you kidding - Anything north of Philly and east of Shittsburgh is Alabama comprised of 70% elderly, 25% white trash, and 5% tax payers. That is my professional opinion based on having had the misfortune to have lived in the State for 2 decades. Fortunately I escaped corrupt Philly in favor of San Diego where corruption of public officials is not quite so obvious and dysfunction is not quite so pronounced.
--
The Toll

Tracking Lord Stanley
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21699949 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:24:42 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21697970 Tell you what. Subscribe to a major news paper and start a database to track politician scandal articles and log their party affiliation and how prominently it is revealed in the article.

Within article headline.
Lead off sentence of first paragraph.
Within first paragraph.
etc.
Also log which page the article is run on and if it continues to another page and if the party affiliation is buried in a subsequent page.

Report back next year and let us know your findings.


--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21697970 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:29:54 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21697525 Next you come across such articles, provide direct links to the online stories, or scan the articles and post. I've never seen blatant bias for either party in the media in this regard...some stories mention the party affiliation up front, others do not, regardless of which party the subject is a member of.
Would like to see examples of this theory...
KM]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21697525 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:26:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21697220
It's the STINK-quirer. Of course it's biased.

I've lived in the Philly area my whole life. Everyone around here knows the Democrat machine runs Philly, and the Republican machine runs Delaware County. Has all my life.

Fumo is a wart on the ass of progress. John Street and his brother belong in Federal prison. Philly has to be one of the most corrupt cities in America.

Pennsylvania is rather corrupt, but I think that's by osmosis. Sharing that long state boundary with New Joisey has it's price...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power…]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21697220 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:45:33 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21697198 DID IT?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21697198 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 14:42:26 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696799 said by R4M0N:

Why is it that when a scandal involves one party, you almost never see party affiliation mentioned in the article? The other party usually is stamped in the first few words in similar reports.

You pretty much can tell the party just by the omission. You guys know what I'm talking about.

:D
Heh. How many people thought that Gary Condit was a Republican? :)
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696799 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:38:12 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696787 said by NOYB:


It does not matter, except that it demonstrates the media bias which the media denies.

Media bias is not so much about which stories are reported but how they are reported and the inferences made and those omitted, so as to taint the readers view in the direction desired by the media.

I recently pointed this out to some co-workers in a local news paper article about a scandal where the politicians political party affiliation was not mentioned until near the end of the article. But when it is the other party which the media is opposed to most of the time, the political affiliation is usually in the first paragraph or even part of the headline. They just have to have that bashing effect.

It is sort of like asking a question with the desired answer embeded.
For example, ‘so and so did not talk to you about such and such did they?’


Exactly. The media in general seems to think this "selective fact reporting" bias is okay. Our local paper, the Orlando Sentinel, is particularly bad (way worse than Karl could ever dream to be even in his most biased moments which are rare). They report on the merits, morals, and virtues of building red light cameras every week at least once, yet fail to mention the numerous studies disproving their "safety" despite many comments and emails and letters to the editor notifying them. Every story mentioning a murder does not include a physical description of the suspect unless they are white. They spam the front page with stories about how a light rail train will save Orlando's economy while omitting the fact that many similar projects in the USA fail and the train is likely to be a huge revenue loss (they already spent 300,000 consulting for a name and logo for this train that has yet to see approval from the legislature). I'm not picking on the left-wing biased news agencies either, the Union Tribune in San Diego was pretty bad with "fact omission" bias with a very right-wing political slant to nearly every article.

In general the editors here do a good job of keeping the articles unbiased, although this "fact omission" slant appears from time to time. It's just the way things are in today's times, I guess. I can't really think of a truly neutral news agency for any type of news.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696787 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:35:29 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696397 It does not matter, except that it demonstrates the media bias which the media denies.

Media bias is not so much about which stories are reported but how they are reported and the inferences made and those omitted, so as to taint the readers view in the direction desired by the media.

I recently pointed this out to some co-workers in a local news paper article about a scandal where the politicians political party affiliation was not mentioned until near the end of the article. But when it is the other party which the media is opposed to most of the time, the political affiliation is usually in the first paragraph or even part of the headline. They just have to have that bashing effect.

It is sort of like asking a question with the desired answer embeded.
For example, ‘so and so did not talk to you about such and such did they?’


--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696397 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:25:09 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696341 said by Mac Bridger:

What does party affiliation matter? Both parties are full of corrupt scumballs. Does it really matter which way they lie to you?
We are making a commentary on the media coverage, not the party. You are right, both parties are full of crooks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696341 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:17:19 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696278 --
Fight Cancer! Join DSLR's Team Discovery]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696278 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:06:21 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696220 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21696220 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:56:06 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21695966 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Offtopic-observation-21695966 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:13:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Offtopic-observation-21695912
You pretty much can tell the party just by the omission. You guys know what I'm talking about.

:D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Offtopic-observation-21695912 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:04:27 EDT