Does CNN Ignore Most Democratic Scandals?
As I’ve noted before one of the advantages of my gym is that its largely liberal membership means that if the TV monitors show a news network it’s almost always CNN or MSNBC. So, while I can’t claim to be an expert on its content, I can report what I notice when I’m doing my cardio (and I do try to do lots of cardio).
Now, it was yesterday (or perhaps the day before) when I caught a bit of Rich Sanchez’s show (I’m pretty sure he was he). He was “reporting” on some scandals. I recognized two of the faces in his little triptych of supposed shame. One was Ann Coulter, the other, Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee
As I was reading Instapundit this morning, I was reminded of that triptych and wondered who that third person might have been. Could it have been a Democrat? I mean, just look at all the Democratic scandals Glenn referenced. Surely, Sanchez must have reported some Democrats in ethical hot water.
With far fewer resources than CNN, Glenn somehow manages to report regularly on Democratic scandals (and he doesn’t neglect the Republican ones). Let’s see, just today we learn about the declining political fortunes of Connecticut’s senior Senator Chris Dodd. Has CNN reported the favorable treatment that Democrat got from Countywide, the failed mortgage firm under the purview of the Senate committee he chairs? His failure to release the documentation of his mortgage (as he has promised)?
Did they cover the raid of lobbying firms with ties to Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha (and with links to his Democratic cronies James Moran and Peter Visclosky)? The multifaceted tax (& disclosure) problems of Charles Rangel, the Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee?
And then there are other lingering Democratic scandals, featuring West Virginia Congressman Alan Mollohan, North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, the Democratic Speaker of the Massachusetts House, mayors and local officials galore.
You can bet if any of these officials had an (R) after their name, CNN would cover the scandal and highlight the (R) like a scarlet letter. When CNN does report Democratic scandals, it tends to neglect the corrupt politician’s political affiliation.
And then there’s the matter of Michael Steele. It doesn’t seem that there’s much there there, just the allegations of a convicted felon. But, if this supposed scandal had featured a Democrat, you can bet CNN (and other MSM outlets) would focus not on the scandal itself, but on how the related documents became public. At least how they would let themselves be “spun” by Democratic operatives.
The US Attorney “inadvertently” leaked the confidential documents to The Washington Post. If the US Attorney inadvertently leaked documents damaging to a Democrat to a conservative paper, Democrats would be in an uproar, demanding an investigation. And CNN would surely lead with that uproar and downplay the contents of the documents.
But, when such documents are damaging to a Republican, it doesn’t matter how they became public. To them, it’s a public service to prove Republican are corrupt, but a scandal to reveal that Democrats have ethical lapses.
UPDATE: It’s not just CNN. Jennifer Rubin observes, “two other congressmen are under investigation, but you have to guess the party affiliation since the New York Times doesn’t tell you.“
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
MSM Conventional Wisdom: Democrats don’t have scandals, they have “glitches” and “honest mistakes.”
Comment by V the K — February 11, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - February 11, 2009
In related news, Democrat congressmen rally to protect corrupt tax cheat Charlie Rangel. There was a vote to remove him from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means committee, but Democrats rallied to protect him.
Comment by V the K — February 11, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - February 11, 2009
I think the Republicans on the ways and means should make a proposal to remove him at evey meeting of the committee. Kind of a carthego deelende est move.
Comment by The Livewire — February 11, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - February 11, 2009
More DNCMSM conventional wisdom:
If there is any wrongdoing committed by an elected official and they are not identified by party affiliation at all in the story – it’s a Dhimmicrat.
If it’s good news about a Dhimmicrat, it will feature their party ID prominently.
If it’s good news about a Republican, it isn’t reported.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 11, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - February 11, 2009
I stopped watching CNN years ago. I prefer “fair and balanced”.
I am addicted to Glenn Beck….wow has he changed since going to FOX.
Comment by Jeb — February 11, 2009 @ 3:54 pm - February 11, 2009
I’m still watching the Mark Foley converage.
Why anyone would watch CNN is a mystery.
Unless of course you watch the news to hear what your tiny liberal mind wants to hear.
Comment by GUS — February 11, 2009 @ 4:38 pm - February 11, 2009
#6 – Gus, “tiny liberal mind” is redundant, you know.
Anticipating screaming liberal queen hysterics (hi, ADD) in 3…2…1…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 11, 2009 @ 4:42 pm - February 11, 2009
OT, but I enjoy watching this each year and 2009 was no exception. The media does some things very well.
Comment by Ignatius — February 11, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - February 11, 2009
#8 – Yeah, they’re great for lining bird cages or wrapping old fish.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 11, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - February 11, 2009
Correction at #8: That should be “…the media do…”
Comment by Ignatius — February 11, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - February 11, 2009
Livewire at #3 offers “I think the Republicans on the ways and means should make a proposal to remove him at evey meeting of the committee. Kind of a carthego deelende est move.”
Awesome suggestion!!
Do Michael Steele or the House GOP Whips read this blog??
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 11, 2009 @ 8:19 pm - February 11, 2009
ya know, I do think the “MSM” does ignore democratic scandals. I mean, I had never even heard of Monica Lewinsky until years after Clinton left office, to say nothing of the impeachment proceedings against him. Nope, not a peep from the MSM…
Comment by Kevin — February 11, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - February 11, 2009
Looks like CBS is starting to pay attention to the John Murtha “situation”. This must be pretty bad if the Blind Eye network is covering it. But I wonder, will Murtha be vilified with the same ferociousness that Duke Cunningham received?
Comment by Sonicfrog — February 12, 2009 @ 12:08 am - February 12, 2009
#12 – Kevvie, please provide evidence of the MSM still pursuing the Lewinsky scandal AFTER Slick Willie left office, or if they were still investigating it, or if it is Constitutionally possible to broach impeachment proceedings when an official is out of office.
I bet you can’t.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — February 12, 2009 @ 12:26 pm - February 12, 2009
Interesting historical revisionism on Kevtwit’s part. The fact is, the MSM was going to cover-up for Bill Clinton. Michael Isikoff had the Monica Lewinsky story for Newsweek, but they decided to spike it. It was only because Matt Drudge broke the story that we even know about it.
Comment by V the K — February 12, 2009 @ 1:28 pm - February 12, 2009