KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Speakeasy
| reply to pnh102
Re: Off-topic observation
I heard about both. Mahoney's issues seemed a lot less controversial than Foley's! And certainly you realize what passes for news these days is influenced by its controversial properties.
And regardless, that doesn't address this subtopic. Was Foley's party affiliation clearly identified and Mahoney's was not? From my recollection, was pretty clear the party of each member as the news reported the stories.
KM |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to N O Y B
Hard to prove a theory without presenting any data, right?
That's all I was asking. If this is true, present the evidence.
If not willing to, makes the theory pretty baseless.
Typical partisan process. Nice. How come you didn't put your party affiliation next to your comment? 
KM |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe  :I would like to see direct examples of this. Here's one.
Remember Mark Foley? Of course you do. He was a Republican. The media made sure the sick things he did in his personal life were national news prior to the 2006 elections.
His replacement, Tim Mahoney, a member of the Democrat party, was accused of giving campaign money to a mistress. While these events were reported in local media in Florida, they did not make national news in most mainstream media outlets. Thankfully, the voters in this district came to their senses and voted this guy out in 2008.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR | reply to KoolMoe
If you want data, go get your own. I have my data. It is not just a theory, it is a fact that I have witnessed many times in person.
|
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to N O Y B
Yeap, that's what I thought. You really don't have any real proof of this, just your own biased impression.
You're the one making the claim; it's on your shoulders to back it up. If you're not willing to, that's fine...but it also speaks to the validity of your theory.
I don't believe this theory, as I stated, so plainly not my burden to prove yours.
KM |
|
N O Y B
St. John 3.16
join:2005-12-15
Forest Grove, OR
1 edit | reply to KoolMoe
Tell you what. Subscribe to a major news paper and start a database to track politician scandal articles and log their party affiliation and how prominently it is revealed in the article.
Within article headline.
Lead off sentence of first paragraph.
Within first paragraph.
etc.
Also log which page the article is run on and if it continues to another page and if the party affiliation is buried in a subsequent page.
Report back next year and let us know your findings.
--
Be a Good Netizen - Read, Know & Complain About Overly Restrictive Tyrannical ISP ToS & AUP »comcast.net/terms/ »verizon.net/policies/
Say Thanks with a Tool Points Donation |
|
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to N O Y B
I would like to see direct examples of this.
Next you come across such articles, provide direct links to the online stories, or scan the articles and post. I've never seen blatant bias for either party in the media in this regard...some stories mention the party affiliation up front, others do not, regardless of which party the subject is a member of.
Would like to see examples of this theory...
KM |
|
