Wham! [UPDATED and UPDATED AGAIN, NOW WITH MORE “TREND” STUFF]
In comparing recent stories of misconduct by Congresspersons, Allah points out that media reports of Republican Sen Larry Craig’s June arrest on suspicion of “lewd conduct” will include, prominently, Craig’s party affiliation — while the initial stories detailing Rep. Bob Filner’s shoving of a baggage claim attendant at Dulles conspicuously avoided mentioning his being a Democrat.
The observation Allah makes is factual. And beyond that, it is relevant — not with respect to either of the arrests — but in pointing out how the mainstream press oftentimes uses a kind of descriptive double standard when it comes to identifying party affiliation in these kinds of stories.
Unfortunately, this relevance is lost on true conservative John Cole, who — after appeasing his readers with the requisite closeted gay Republican jibes — characterizes Allah’s post thus:
In case you are wondering how the right wing will treat this, Hot Air addresses the issue of a Republican Senator soliciting sex in a bathroom and discoversÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ MEDIA PERFIDY:
If youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re wondering which party he belongs to, let me put it this way: the media will be sure to specify it in its reporting on this story.
Yes. The fallout from this one clearly can be pinned on the media, Allah.
One can only assume Cole is either too stupid to see how a post about the way a story is reported can differ from a post about the story itself (and that the two posts have different aims), or else he is intentionally misrepresenting Allah’s post, likely so that he can join Andy Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald in the neverending quest to shore up his “sensible conservative” bona fides among those who count most: dedicated progressives and fag bashers.
I can’t speak to Cole’s motives — it’s possible, after all, that he’s simply grown moronic from surrendering himself to the only people who still regularly read him — but I don’t think we should look past the possibility that John might be angling for a NYT bestseller, or that he is desirous of having one of his posts about Matt Sanchez blowing a male candystriper for a fistful of Percocet and a snack bag of Cheez-its read into the Congressional Record.
Though probably not by Barney Frank.
update: Cole immediately responds by missing the point entirely. Which is this: Cole tries — even in his update — to minimize the fact of these reporting differences by pretending, each time, that they are one-time events. He seems to go out of his way, in fact, to mock the very posts that, taken in the aggregate, point to the kind of trend he appears desperate to avoid noticing.
— All for a clap on the back from people who actually claim to believe that Michelle Malkin wants to murder Hispanics by firing buckshot the size of ping pong balls at them from her hate-clenched snapper.
So no, John, I’m not upset with you. I just think that pretending not to see the difference between covering a story and covering the way a story is covered is disingenuous. Or else you really have become as dumb as those you surround yourself with.
update 2: Sorry, been away from the computer for a bit and didn’t anticipate the deluge of “progressives” demanding “proof” that this kind of double standard in reporting happens rather frequently — first, because I thought they’d embraced “the fallacy of proof,” and second, because, well, I have a search function here on the site, and Google has one that keeps track of the whole of the internets.
But here is a recent post where I’ve addressed the same phenomenon.
As I noted in the comments to that post, I care about this only inasmuch as it speaks to a double standard that is easily correctable — one that is similar to the well-documented phenomenon mentioned by dicentra here:
Just as when a talk-show host shows up on an MSM news program, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s always Ã¢â‚¬Å“conservative talk-show host Hugh HewittÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“right-wing talk-show host Dennis Prager.Ã¢â‚¬Â
When was the last time someone was described as Ã¢â‚¬Å“left-wingÃ¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“liberalÃ¢â‚¬Â in a similar situation?
So I guess if I interpret that as bias, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m just frothing at the mouth. Got it.
A particular phrase shows up frequently in the stories of a newspaper, Ã¢â‚¬Å“so-and-so is a member of the X church.Ã¢â‚¬Â
The phrase is inserted ONLY when so-and-so has done something naughty, and the X stands for one church only. If a suspect belongs to church Y or Z or no church at all, the religion is never mentioned. Also, the suspect may not have darkened the doorway of church X since his baptism, but the information appears anyway.
Is that newspaper displaying bias against church X? Why or why not?
I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see a trend, but I do see a lot of whinging.
If you have evidence of a trend (as opposed to one example), letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s see your evidence. Cite a study or show us your evidence. And spare me your perception general trends. I want to see proof. Put up or shut up, buddy. […]
What I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get is that Larry Craig tried to suck some guyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s dick in an airport bathroom and you are whining about media bias.
Ah, there’s that tolerance for alternative lifestyles the left is so famous for embracing!
Now, I can’t speak for the nuance crowd, but from my standpoint, I find it quite easy to separate the story of a plea to disorderly conduct from the separate consideration into the way that story is reported in relation to similar stories wherein the perpetrator is a Donk.
But all that is beside the point. Tim in SF wants a trend (though he won’t define what a “trend” is), but to get him started, Karl has put together a nice compendium over at the Pub.
Add to that the 3 more from Good Lt. and I think we’re at 21 thus far (unless there’s been some overlap. Truth is, the examples are coming so fast, who has a chance to vet them all?).