Good morning.
- Choosing one’s passing, heh.
- Of Daphny van den Brand.
- Now that’s what I call short term thinking … increase debt to decrease the population and thereby decreasing the numbers of those who will be paying down that debt in the future. And it’s not just Ms Pelosi pushing that tale.
- Speaking of demographics … why is Europe committing demographic suicide?
- Popular Culture meets philosophy.
- Barack on spending.
- I’ve always ended that prayer “a sinner” not “a servant.” I wonder if that’s how some teach it to kids.
- Heh. (literally)
- I’m with him 100% on that first one. And I like a lot of other Kubrick films.
- Benedict, the church and the SSPX bishops … it’s not “about anti-Semitism” but is also badly handled “PR.”
- Will the economic stress fracture the Euro?
- Stopping sans brakes.
- Stimulus bill = “the worse bill in galactic history?”
- For the girls (a book).
- A good question, “what kind of person takes Che for a hero?” … or Mao? Or Lenin?
- Hmm, media bias perhaps?
- Patriotism, two posts (here and here), I was going to write a whole essay last night on these two. I think Mr Brayton and Mr Beinhart don’t get it at all and prefer instead to demonize or trivialize views of the “other” … which is by and large far easier.
- So, CO2 caused the tsunami?
Hmm, media bias perhaps?
Need to fill up space again? Why? 17 items would have been perfectly good.
Anyway, once again we perform the simple test I did the last time this came up. In the LA Times I search for the word ‘mayor’ and wola, whether the story is good, bad or indifferent most of the articles rarely mention the party affiliation of the mayor they are talking about. (Technically this was an AP story that appeared in the LA Times but you get the point).
Boonton,
Have you done the reverse test. Consider a GOP scandal ridden person in trouble, I’m not sure I know of one in the news right now as the Dems seem the party-of-scandal at the moment.. Is the party mentioned there?
That’s an interesting proposal. Basically your thesis is that during normal stories the biased paper follows a predictable pattern…say not mentioning party affiliation. When a scandal breaks out, though, party affiliation is mentioned if the person is Republican but not Democrat.
If you find an example of that you should link to it. Unfortunately this is a bit trickier than it sounds. When, for example, the topic was the Chicago Tribune I documented that they seem to have a policy of not identifying the party of the Executive but they do identify the party of legislators but if the person is no longer in office, Executive or legislator they identify the party. So Blago’s party is not mentioned, the former Il governor who is now in jail and is a Republican is mentioned, individual legislators commenting or even just mentioned in a story are identified by party. Now you have to show an example where that rule seems to be broken.
For the LA Times you have to do the same exercise, first figuring what, if any, rule they are using regarding party identification.
Complicating the matter is when the party the person belongs too becomes part of the story. The Abramoff scandal, for example, was important because he was a lobist that had numerous ties to Republicans. The Larry Craig scandal became a fight he started having with Republican Senate Leadership who wanted him to resign. Blago’s nominee had to fight with Senate Democratic Leaders who didn’t want to seat him initially. You’ll have to identify whether a paper breaking its rule was going out of its way to tarnish Republicans or simply making an exception due to the nature of the story.