Immanuel
Junior Member
Now, back to the topic on hand.
At first I agree with Dixie, it sure seems like the media goes out of its way to notify readers that a corrupt politician is a Republican or vice versa to hide the fact that he/she is a Democrat. But, the funny thing is that it always comes out when it is a Democrat and the media eventually has to throw in the fact that it is a Democrat. And this usually makes the media look bad.
With today's information technology, it doesn't take long for anyone to look up the fact that a particular state senator who has been caught with his pants down so to speak is a member of any particular party.
What would be really interesting would be a study on how the media treats the members of a party and if there is a bias there. For instance, with the Gov. Blagojevich issue, has the media "swept it under the rug" or have they come out with guns blazing against him so to speak. At the same time, comparing that to other scandals that both parties have had to face.
The single fact that it may be harder to find the D's party affiliation in a story than it is to find a R's party affiliation is not proof in and of itself of media bias. It is easy for me as a conservative to pick out stories here and there and say that (R) is in the second sentence of this story while (D) appeared in the third paragraph (on a separate page even) of this story. (note not saying that the example Dixie used had (D) on a separate page, just elaborating on this example) But, I am certain, that Watermark could do the same thing with other stories.
The proof is not in this fact alone. The proof is in how the overall media treats the various scandals of our times. It will be interesting to see how the media treats the Obama Administration in the days to come.
Immie
At first I agree with Dixie, it sure seems like the media goes out of its way to notify readers that a corrupt politician is a Republican or vice versa to hide the fact that he/she is a Democrat. But, the funny thing is that it always comes out when it is a Democrat and the media eventually has to throw in the fact that it is a Democrat. And this usually makes the media look bad.
With today's information technology, it doesn't take long for anyone to look up the fact that a particular state senator who has been caught with his pants down so to speak is a member of any particular party.
What would be really interesting would be a study on how the media treats the members of a party and if there is a bias there. For instance, with the Gov. Blagojevich issue, has the media "swept it under the rug" or have they come out with guns blazing against him so to speak. At the same time, comparing that to other scandals that both parties have had to face.
The single fact that it may be harder to find the D's party affiliation in a story than it is to find a R's party affiliation is not proof in and of itself of media bias. It is easy for me as a conservative to pick out stories here and there and say that (R) is in the second sentence of this story while (D) appeared in the third paragraph (on a separate page even) of this story. (note not saying that the example Dixie used had (D) on a separate page, just elaborating on this example) But, I am certain, that Watermark could do the same thing with other stories.
The proof is not in this fact alone. The proof is in how the overall media treats the various scandals of our times. It will be interesting to see how the media treats the Obama Administration in the days to come.
Immie