I’m sorry: while party affiliation would have been helpful, I don’t see the “obviously slanted” bit here. With Miller, I don’t see what the point of deliberately trying to conceal it would be, and it stretches credulity to think that someone sat down and maliciously removed all reference to party as part of a cover-up.
Piece of sleaze? Please. You’re just making yourself look extreme and silly.
But why would you make the that assumption, instead of assuming that California follows the Colorado model, where we elect our Secretary of State as a stand alone office? I just think you’re making too many assumptions on how dumb people are. Mind you, you may be right, but there’s no way to know.
I think this whole thread is a tempest in a teapot, myself.
Uhhhh… the Secretary of State is an elected official IN YOUR OWN STATE. Why wouldn’t you assume that it’s the case in California? Happens all over the place.
Why hold the NYT accountable for your own basic ignorance of the electoral process?
Dammit, TYM.
That’ll teach me not to stop and pick my nose…
Now, what would be interesting would be if the mismanagement of the funds meant that mostly Republican-leaning areas of California didn’t get needed voting system upgrades, leading to possible vote count inaccuracies. But I don’t see any allegations of that in the article.
If that were the case, like with Harris and her 2004 copycats, it would be imperative that the party in question be named, since it possibly affected nationwide results. But as it stands, it looks like garden-variety graft, which is common to most parties. Party affiliation in that case would be nice but lack of it isn’t earth-shattering: I highly doubt that more than a few percentages of people in America think one party engages in fiscal back door deals significantly more than the other party.
Could you link to the obviously slanted story on the Bush Adminstration buy journalists and perhaps show why you think that article was slanted. You have demontrated how leaving out the fact that Shelly was a Democrate was a slant but what about the other one?
Much as I’d love to bash the Times, I believe you are in error, Jackmanii. A search on the *Times’ *site turns up a lot of articles about Mr. Shelley. All of the ones in the “National Briefing” section left out his party affiliation, even back when he was a Democratic party golden boy railing against Diebold machines. The fuller story on the scandal, published on January 9, mentions him as “from a well-known San Francisco Democratic family” in what appears to be the first paragraph. The Times appears to be following long-time standard non-partisan style guidelines in this case.
Look, I’m not trying to compare this omission by the NY Times to the coming of the anti-christ, I just find it bizarre that some people have claimed that it either wasn’t important or else didn’t see how this could possibly be an example of biased reporting.
Again, maybe it was a simple mistake, but the NY Times should do better. It won’t stop me from reading them, but it seems like it definitely could represent an attempt to make “their party” look better.
If Foxnews failed to mention the party of Republicans carrying out unethical shenanigans, it seems as if a lot more of this board would be full of ire.
It’s not idiotic to think that there’s a possibility that Schwartzenegger would or could replace the Secretary of State with someone in his own party. What is idiotic is to assume that, in the abscense of evidence one way or the other, Schwartzenegger must have replaced the Secretary of State with someone from his own party. Said idiocy being, apparently, a necessary component in your “NYT liberal plot” theory. I don’t think most people are that stupid, and I don’t think the NYT thinks most people are that stupid.
You couldn’t get the point if you were impaled on it from a great height, could you? I’m not questioning wether the NYT has a bias. They could be the official propaganda arm for the DNC, for all I care. I don’t even read the damn thing with any sort of regularity. What I’m asking is, how does this omission serve that bias? Let’s say it was deliberate. Let’s say that the editorial staff at the NYT rented out the Evil Plotting Room from the Trilateral comission, agreed not to mention Shelley’s party affiliation, laughed maniacally, and then published an article with no mention of the Democratic party. So fucking what? How does that affect the political discourse in the country? How, precisely, are their readers being misled? What the hell is step two in the grand conspiracy? Is the NYT being run by the Underpants Gnomes? I understand the alleged motive, already. Help me out a little bit here with the fucking outcome.
I doubt the existence of any “long-time standard non-partisan style guidelines” for the National Briefing section of the Times, especially as a search readily turns up other instances where Republican politicians were identified as such under less than flattering circumstances. For instance, there’s Illinois’ Jack Ryan, who figured in a sex club mini-scandal and was dutifully identified as a Republican in the Times’ squib. A non-partisan approach would have mentioned him only as a candidate for the Senate from Illinois.
As to there being a previous full-length article which at least broadly hints that Shelley is a Democrat (the fairness of this piece being difficult to judge from the brief excerpt available to non-payers) - fine and dandy. Obviously it would be ludicrous for the Times to attempt to conceal Shelley’s party affiliation in all of its news coverage. The fact remains that as the scandal surrounding Shelley deepens, the Times omitted this key piece of information in a followup story, while the unedited AP dispatch gives party status the attention it deserves.
From the 10/13 National Briefing section (the same section featuring the Kevin Shelley story that inspired this thread):
NORTH CAROLINA: FORMER CONGRESSMAN SENTENCED Former Representative Frank W. Ballance Jr. was sentenced to four years in prison for conspiring to divert taxpayer money to his law firm and family through a charitable organization he helped start. Mr. Ballance, 63, a long-time state legislator before being elected to Congress, has until Dec. 30 to turn himself in, Judge Terrence W. Boyle of Federal District Court ruled. Mr. Ballance also agreed to repay $61,917 and to foregeit $203,000 in an account in the name of the John A. Hyman Memorial Foundation. The money will be returned to taxpayers, said Dennis Duffy, a prosecutor. Before he was sentenced, Mr. Ballance said “I wasn to apologize to my family and all the people I represent for what - I call them mistakes, but they were violations of the law.”
Here’s another take on reporting the same story (from the website of a North Carolina newspaper):
"Former Congressman Frank Ballance was sentenced to four years in federal prison Wednesday for conspiring to misuse thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds.
U.S District Judge Terrence Boyle also sentenced the former Democratic Congressman…"
Once again, the N.Y. Times damages its credibility by omitting a key fact from a story about a sleazeball politician who shares its party affiliation.
Can you link to a similar National Briefing about a Republican official in trouble wherein the briefing has the official’s party mentioned?
Until then, there isn’t exactly a case to be made here.
And when that happens this pitting will actually mean something.
Hmm, I thought that bumping threads from nine months ago was against the rules here.
Already have. First page of the thread. Jack Ryan (a Republican derailed by scandal, whose party affiliation the Times referred to in the first four words of its story).
Dunno what relevance Polycarp’s link has. That column does mention that Ballance is a Democrat.
Updike: “Bumping”, as I understand it, means resurrecting an old thread without a valid purpose. Citing a new example in support of the OP would not fall under that heading.
I respect your devotion to board rules, however. :dubious:
No, you’re supposed to provide a link, not bump old threads. You’d think that after 4000 posts and five years you’d know this, but I guess not.
Nothing personal, BTW, I just hate it when message boards don’t enforce their own rules.
Exactly. Jackmannii has failed to realize that it’s “ideology uber alles” around here. I come across similar things every once in a while, but it’s getting to the point where it’s not worth diving into the echo chamber.
There is only one truth here, folks. It’s where Republicans are clueless and evil and George Bush gives no-bid contracts to Halliburton to drain the blood of infants for his cronies to feast on.
There are a few exceptions, but any reasonable discussion of a point of contention is generally fruitless anymore.
Really? Let me know where you gleaned this nugget. One is not supposed to start multiple threads on the same topic, so it would appear appropriate to update this one.
As to board rules, I commend to you the very first one listed on the Rules page.