Wednesday Highlights

Good morning.

9 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. For those seeking an Obama connection to the Blago scandal … look no further. Another view of the scandal. And finally for those who don’t believe there’s such a thing as media bias … evidence of media bias that should be hard to set aside.

    LOL. The first two links are pure insinuation, but the last, wow, that’s just embarrassing. You do know that the Weekly Standard people believe in the Noble Lie, right? Even they don’t really believe the article left out the (D) because of bias. You’d have to be insane to think that.

  2. People who prattle on about ‘connections’ almost always are about distorting the truth. The case is very simple. The governor tried to collect a bribe for making an appointment. Either Obama was involved with this or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t then there is no ‘connection’.

    ‘Connectionites’, though, don’t care about the truth. They’d rather not have it. The truth is very specific, very ‘yes or no’ orientated. They’d rather keep things mushy, vague and complicated so the question of ‘are there connections’ can never be answered. It would be very surprising for there not to be connections. I’d expect a Senator to have had plenty of contact with the governor of the state he represents. Likewise I wouldn’t be surprised if a Senator had called up the governor to tell him he was stepping down and the gov. would have to appoint a replacement. I even wouldn’t be surprised if said Senator suggested some possibilities. I would be surprised, though, to learn that Obama was in on this governor’s attempt to turn a duty of his into a bribe.

    So what does Mark give us for a ‘connection’? Well Michele Obama was once appointed to a hospital board, which is a $275K year position and she was appointed to the board of Tollhouse foods which is a $50K a year position. Did the corrupt governor appoint her? Errr no. So what’s the connection? Ohhh well she was appointed to these two jobs so she must have bribed someone? Does this apply to everyone in Illnois who was appointed to any job? Let’s just say that Michele Obama did bribe someone to appoint her to those two jobs. How does that ‘connect’ to the governor scandal? Why not say there’s a connection to SC Justice Thomas? He too was appointed to the job he currently holds.

  3. Perhaps the best way to test a claim of media bias is to see if the paper did mention Blagojevich’s party when the story was netural or positive. Looking through the archives, this is the first story I noticed that came before the scandal:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1310957,CST-NWS-sweet03.article

    It was a neutral story about the people Blagojevich was considering to appoint as Obama’s replacement. While the paper did identify some people like Jesse Jackson Jr as democrats it didn’t bother to mention Blagojevich was a D.

    Going backwards in time here’s the first article I found that can be said to be about something positive:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1291696,CST-NWS-leg21.article It’s about a bill the governor proposed that would allow the state to get $30m from casino money each year for the next 3 years. There too the paper did not identify the governor as a democrat but, interestingly, did identify the party of two state representatives that took opposing stances on the bill.

    It would seem the paper’s practice is to not identify the party of the governor, possibly because it assumes everyone knows his party but it does identify the party of legislators…again maybe on the assumption that people are not as familiar with their party.

    The test for media bias presented here vindicates the paper it would seem.

  4. Boonton,
    Within hours both sites corrected their oversight of the governor’s party. Why? I think a better way would be to review to see if party was mentioned during GOP scandals.

    I recall some years back watching a vote on an matter being televised. The announcer noted the name of each Senator coming forward to cast his vote. They only felt they needed to mention party for the Republicans.

    As for the allegations regarding Ms Obama, are you daft? The notion wasn’t that Blago had anything to do with that, just ordinary Chicago quid pro quo wherein Obama was a Chicago pol … therefore like Ms Blago, she benefited as well.

  5. Why? I think a better way would be to review to see if party was mentioned during GOP scandals.

    Sounds like you’re trying to cherry pick until you get the result you want. If the bias is in favor of Democrats and if the nature of that bias is to leave out party affiliation when the story is negative then shouldn’t party affiliation appear when the story is not negative?

    The notion wasn’t that Blago had anything to do with that,

    Thanks for admitting your ‘connection’ really wasn’t a connection.

    Quid pro quo is interesting because you have shown no evidence for it. There are plenty of reasons to appoint Mrs. Obama to be the head of a hosipital board. One of the primary ones is that she is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law. Worked for the law firm Sidley Austin (one of the world’s oldest firms) and mayor Daley before going to work for the University of Chicago where she went to the U of C Hospitals as an executive director. That such a person makes $273K a year is hardly unusual.

    More to the point, even if she was given these jobs because the people behind them hoped to curry favor with her husband we are not talking about bribery. Gotta have a quid pro quo to have a quid pro quo. But even more to the point, let’s say that the U of C Hospitals gave Mrs. Obama a job and in exchange her husband agreed to do something like support a bill or whatnot. That would be a bribe! BUT GUESS WHAT MARK, THERE’S STILL NO CONNECTION TO THAT AND THE CURRENT SCANDAL! So if you want to obsess over Michele’s job then feel free but you and your friends are deluding yourself if you think this governor’s scandal is some type of ‘ah ha’ moment.

  6. Why? I think a better way would be to review to see if party was mentioned during GOP scandals.

    Well this is kind of neat. From what I understand the previous Gov. was Republican and ended up in jail for being corrupt. I’ll leave it to you to dig up old stories about him and see if they identified him with his party or not.

    But your source choose its test and by that test it fails. This isn’t surprising, quite often it appears right wing media uses the old ‘media bias’ line to fill up empty space.

  7. Boonton,
    Why then did the AP and other source redact their post and add a party affiliation later.

    Oh, and the leaving the name in the broadcast … the media is supposed to be unbiased, that means they should be reporting the two parties the same.

    Do you honestly think the media is not (strongly) biased toward the democratic party and the liberal agenda?

  8. Perhaps they redacted their original story because they were criticized for it. Perhaps because the story has national attention the editor decided it was no longer a safe assumption that only locals were reading & the governor’s party was common knowledge.

    Do you honestly think the media is not (strongly) biased toward the democratic party and the liberal agenda?

    If this statement has great truth value then that makes your low quality example all the more of a failure.

    As for your question, is this where we play another round where Fox News, the WSJ, and others are suddenly not part of the media again?

  9. Here I go doing your homework again. I looked up George Ryan on the same site. Here are some examples of articles about the former Republican Governor who is currently sitting in jail for corruption:

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/georgeryantrial/31022,ryan301.article

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/georgeryantrial/31066,ryan20.article

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/georgeryantrial/30900,cst-nws-ryan28.article

    All articles are about negative events (Ryan’s trial, various charges against him etc.) and they were from after he was no longer governor so there could be a good argument for providing his affiliation for the benefit of readers who were new to Il politics but none of them bother identifying Ryan as a Republican.

    Meanwhile, back in reality land, where are those ‘connections’ again?

    Hope you’re getting over your cold. That’s the only reason I’m doing your homework for you tonight! :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>