<p>Driver–according to the article, the staffers weren’t “caught”, they were immediately reported to the US Attorney’s office by the Democratic committee itself. Are you saying that the Times made that up?</p>
<p>Garland,
No. The point was the emphasis of the two articles, neither of which mentions that anyone was “caught.” The first article, which came out 2 weeks ago, properly points out that operatives of the DSCC are under investigation by the FBI and the US Attorney’s office for illegally using a SS# to fraudulently obtain a political opponent’s personal financial information. Pretty bad stuff. </p>
<p>The second improperly places the emphasis of the story (the first NYT reference to said story) on the Republican’s alleged “trying to exploit potential legal problems that Democrats are now suddenly facing in that race.” </p>
<p>As I said: imagine what the NYT would have done with this story if the names Frist and Schumer were interchanged. And the names Steele and Obama were interchanged. And RSCC were interchanged with DSCC.</p>
<p>No, you said “caught”. And if the Republicans had caught two of their own staffers trying to pull such a stunt, and had immediately turnedthem in, I don’t doubt that the Democrats would also have tried to turn it into a story of a deeper plot, though it seems obvious it is not. yeah, the Ds have potential legal problems from the stupidty of these two staffers, and yeah, the Rs are exploiting that fact. They are no longer “operatives” having resigned after their bosses turned them in. So where is the bigger story i am apparently still missing?</p>
<p>The issue isn’t what the Dems would have hypothetically tried to do with this story; it’s what the “paper of record” actually did with it. I did say “caught.” Excise that word from my post, and substitute “charged with”–nothing changes as to the distinctly different tone between the two stories. And the fact that the NYT’s slanted piece came fully two weeks after the story broke. Katie Barge, the alleged felon in question, also served as an opposition researcher for John Edwards, and is a 2001 grad of Wesleyan University (I throw that in just because this is, after all, a college site. Do you think a Pepperdine grad working for Frist who tried this stunt against Obama might have made the front page? Immediately, and with huge repercussions?) I think she and the other young extremist are in big legal trouble. The DSCC and Schumer would be in much bigger trouble than they currently are had the NYT given them the front page Republican treatment that would have occured had the situation been reversed.</p>
<p>Republicans are in power, and they get the coverage, and right now, there are so many republicans in trouble everywhere, but hey, never admit that possibly republicans are liars, currupt, cheats, and more</p>
<p>but I forget, they are perfect men who have no faults</p>
<p>By John Wagner and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page B05</p>
<p>"Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two Democratic Party researchers in Washington illegally obtained the credit report of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele as they conducted opposition research on the likely Republican Senate candidate.</p>
<p>“Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, acknowledged yesterday that two of his organization’s employees had resigned as a result of the episode, which he said was subsequently referred to the U.S. attorney’s office by the Democratic committee.”</p>
<p>Sorry, driver, if anything, one might say that the post was slanting (and most acknowledge it to be kind’ve right wing slanted cough<em>Murdoch</em>cough. All three articles clearly tell the story. it makes sense that it was reported earlier in the Wpost, since it’s a local story for them. For the NYPost to connect it to Shumer, when it’s the Dems who called in the feds, now, that’s politics.</p>
<p>I believe that Driver’s point is that the NYTime editorialized the story by bringing the republicans into the story. The other versions of the story were more factually based leaving more room for us to interpret motive to the actions of the parties.</p>
<p>My question would be, were the 2 articles news articles or did the NY Times version appear on their editorial page. If the NY Times story was on the editorial page I would expect opinion and motive to be part of the story. If it was a news story . . . perhaps it is just a beat writer who want to write for the Editorial page. ;-)</p>
<p>I realize that’s her point. I just don’t agree, in fact, I see more editorializing in the NYPost article, which immediately connects it to a NY Dem. The --later–NYT article is specifically on the Republican reaction and spin, which is more of a retrospective topic.</p>
Exactly. Not only did they bring the Rs into the story, they made them the focus–the active element–of the story. And they didn’t even touch it for two full weeks. Again, if the RSCC had been associated with this kind of thing, it would still be reverberating throughout the media world.</p>
<p>Hate to sound dense here, but I am just not getting why the original story would reverberate no matter who did it. It’s pretty open and shut–it was dealt with responsibly. No one seems to think tht the DSCC countenanced the actions, since on the contrary they reported them.</p>
<p>What out of this could possibly “reverberate” besides the use of it as spin, which I’m sure either party would have jumped on?</p>
<p>garland, you’re point seems to be that if the misdeed is reported properly and dealt with by the books that there will be no media generated “reverberation”. Well, let me give you an example to show you that this is not the case when the misdeed can somehow be linked to the administration - Abu Ghraib. </p>
<p>With Abu Ghraib you had a misdeed that was caught by the army and the wheels of justice were already turning by the army when the media (CBS) got hold of the story. The media and the New York Times in particular lived off that story for months. Even today they, with the able assistance of the ACLU, are trying to resurrect it by showing even more photos. So what if more people die as a result of this!</p>
<p>I’m with Driver on the Maryland story - had the miscreants been Republicans, the Times would have been all over this story with allusions to Tricky Dick’s dirty tricks.</p>
<p>Abu Ghraib was reported internally long before it was dealt with. Media (and citizen) outrage because of the photos helped get it out in the open (whereas the Dem flap was reported and dealt with immediately ). Also, torture by US representatives is performed in all our names, thus we need to analyze and understand how it happened, what other locations it is still occurring in, and how we can end it. WE are responsible for it, so WE need to examine it fully. Especially, as it was obviously not one transgression but rather a continuous situation where criminal, inhuman behavior was accepted in a pretty large group as the norm. Which is in itself pretty troubling.</p>
<p>NYT has never been trustworthy to me. Basically rightwing, so-called “free trade” flacks, who make much of the differences among our Republocrats, and pretty much ignore the impact of military-industrial policies on the majority of the world’s people. </p>
<p>They know who the majority of their readers are, and act accordingly.</p>
<p>“Radically left-wing” Lord - what a world view! The Times - the paper that Judith Miller shamelesly pimped the phony Iraq WMD story in - “radically left-wing”!? I realixe that Driver is a Limbaugh acolyte, and expect her goofy posts, but “radically left-wing” is going to a whole new level. On a scale of A to Z, the Times might occasionally veer all the way to L – when it’s feeling its oats!</p>
<p>The NYT isn’t coherent enough under Pinch Sulzberger to be called ideological. It would be more accurate to say that in the absence of any kind of ideas forthcoming from a defeated and rudderless Democratic party, the NYT (and similar MSM outlets) have dropped all pretense of political objectivity, and have become the opposition party themselves–with all the dirty tricks and smear tactics that follow. The Democrats in power simply follow their lead now, as was evident in the Roberts hearings.</p>
<p>Only on college confidential–or in the Daily Worker–would the NYT be considered anything other than left and liberal [perhaps Paris]…even the NYT supporters would accept that; only distinguishing themselves as those who believe it could be no other way because their is no other way to print rational ideas, and those who simply enjoy the fact that it is their house organ.</p>