Media Coverage Of Politics
 

Senator Menendez of New Jersey is a Democrat. He is up to his eyeballs in trouble right now. First, it was reported that a Florida eye surgeon (who has been a big donor to Senator Menendez) took Menendez to the Dominican republic, several times, on his private jet. Senators are required to disclose such things, and compensate the owner of the jet for the going rate for such trips. Menendez didn't disclose his trips until he got caught. It is reported that there were other trips he didn't disclose and pay for. It is also reported that Senator Menendez paid for sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic (that's just an allegation). It's also reported (and not disputed that I have seen) that Senator Menendez steered a $500 million port security contract to a security company owned by none other than the Florida surgeon who flew the Senator to the Dominican Republic (I'm sure that was just a coincidence).

No one, other than Foxnews, is giving any meaningful time to this story. MSNBC had Senator Menendez on last week to talk about the State of the Union, and incredibly (or maybe predictably) the investigations never came up during his appearance.

All of the news stations are going crazy over the fact that Senator Marco Rubio, a conservative Republican who is literally Public Enemy #1 to liberals for the forseeable future, took an awkward drink of water during his response to the State Of The Union address.

I didn't see Rubio's appearance. But if all the liberal pundits can do is point out that he had the audacity to take a sip of water, I assume there was nothing in his speech that the liberals felt they could refute.

dont get me started Jimbo....menendez is not even mentioned on CNN however Rubio (note the slow motions shot)......


http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#...water-gate.cnn

For the most part liberals are very immature emotionally . They eat this stuff up!! I work in Cambridge. They actually laugh at stuff like this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has been getting some play on the local radio talk but other than that, would never had heard of it...

One think for sure, Everyone knows who Rubio is :)
Perhaps it was diabolically planned
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I read a long story about Menendez on nbcnews (i.e. msnbc) and his compliance issues, sorry to have to tell you this.

As for his sleeping with minors, I don't believe that's part of the investigation. A major news outlet probably isn't going to report on it unless there's some credibility. There's a lot that's on Drudge that the mainstream media (including FOX) often doesn't cover because it's just irresponsible until there's real evidence.

-spence

Spence, I want to thank you for bringing me to tears with this beauty. You are one funny bastard :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believe it or not they do have standards. Doesn't mean they don't report on some stupid stuff but an allegation with criminal reprocess ions has a very high threshold.

Hey, did you know that guy in your avatar was for gun bans? Just saying...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know a certain group of college lacrosse players that would disagree. I also remember several suicides by wrongly accused by the media, individuals.
Your blind faith does however explain a lot of your positions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, go look up the Gun Owners Protection Act . I believe it passed in 86'.
Your wrong but I understand :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No. They do not. Their only standards are "what panders best to our target audience" and "what furthers the agendas of our executives". Anyone who thinks differently has allowed them to pull the wool over your eyes.

There's a reason I refuse to call them "news organizations". They are nothing more than editorialized, agenda-driven sources for propaganda... all of them.

Reagan supported the FAWB.

-spence

No. A Democrat named Hughes sleezed in an amendment at the 11th hour banning i believe true machine guns. Reagan did take some heat for signing the bill that had this amendment attached .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team whose lives were ruined.

Spence, what you mean to say is, there are high thresholds when the criminal is sympathetic to the liberal agenda.

You don't believe that the underage pristitute thiing is part of the investigation. Which FBI agent told you this? Or are you, as always, dismissive of that which makes your side look immoral and stupid?

You're mixing legislation. Ronald Reagan, your hero and avatar, openly supported the 1994 FAWB.

Perhaps it was just old age.

-spence

Yes, my old age and you are correct. He did support the Brady bill
He did however have a profound impact on the 2nd amendment by appointing Scalia and Kennedy. Without them we almost lost the
2 nd amendment
Still my hero
Now back to the thread 😄
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I meant Reagan's old age.

-spence

I seem to remember a Rather prominent member of CBS reporting a totally false story on GW Bushes military record. Running with the story prior to having authentication. Those are high standards.

Media controls the country IMHO context context context. Everything can be protrayed a certain way given the appropriate sound bytes and video shots etc. it is a way of life. The under informed just go with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're suggesting the mainstream media should drop it's standards and embrace a suspect report?

-spence

Of course not. I am saying they do. Particularly when it benefits their agenda
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Things to slip through the cracks, but that doesn't mean they don't have journalistic standards. I'd note that Rather was pretty much taken down from his throne after that event. Even considering it wasn't a totally false story, but one that had pieces of bad evidence.

-spence

Running with a story that is unsubstantiated particularly when it concerns the POTUS lacks integrity. Regardless of who the standing president is.

It is an unfortunate side effect of modern journalism with all of the instantaneous media outlets available to us te days of great news anchors is over. By the time it hits the 6:00 It has already been reported.

I do feel our current mainstream media twist things to their agenda through context and portrayal which is truly what the original argument is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Journalistic standards" - using this term to describe mainstream media is beyond ridiculous. Every single one of them present agenda-driven, editorialized reporting.

Foxnews, MSNBC and CNN all spend a small percentage of time actually reporting the news and a substantial amount of time setting an emotional response and framing up how their viewers should "feel" about the report. They do not care what the story is, as long as it will appeal their viewers and their viewers will ignore any critical-thinking skills in order to soak up whatever bs opinions are being presented without question.

You seem to be their ideal viewer.

The Menendez story is more interesting the more I read about it. Apparently the tip about his cavorting with underage girls has little to no merit. It might not even be politically motivated as much as criminally motivated by some in PR who don't like the influence of his business friend. The FBI has investigated and found nothing behind it.

For all the beotching about the media not covering it I've read plenty on NBC, the NYTimes and Washington Post.

-spence

another long article yesterday in the NY Times about it.

Reporting" nothing to see here, move along" perhaps ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, he certainly could have some ethics violations to answer for...

That's the rub, your left wing media is reporting on this story...they're just pushing the credible parts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, dod you read it? or ass-u-me-ing?:smash:

Why don't you actually read the articles?

There have been lots of articles in the Times on this. I can show you how to search for them if your interested.

And we all know how ethics violations are handled .
Just so you know... I hope he's not guilty of the sexual accusations but these are arrogant powerful and clearly unethical people. I simple don't put anything past them and the "left media" (your words) have a historical past of selective reporting. Not based on credibility but on their own arrogance and agenda.
Fox is as guilty as CNN
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's what I was getting at.

The day after the state of the union address, MSNBC showed the clip of Rubio getting a drink of water, more than 100 times.

A few days before, Sen Menendez was on the air at MSNBC with Red Shultz. Schukltz, being the hard-hitting journalist he is, never mentioned Menendez's ethical lapses.

If you point out that the NYT ran a story (or stories), that is certainly relevent. It would be more relevent if you compared the exposure that the NYT gave to the Menendez story, versus the Rubio (GASP!) water drinking controversy.

By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/ny...anted=all&_r=0

"the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear. "

Does the NYT suggest anywhere that 100% of the media frenzy focusing on Rubio's taking a sip of water, is political smear?

I'm sure the NYT is correct that there is politics involved in the Menendez investigation. But why didn't the NYT similarly dismiss the absurd notion that Rubio's taking a sip of water, means anything whatsoever?

Post links to all the NYT stories about Rubio gulping the water since you seem to imply they spent more time discussing that vs. Menendez. Then we'll see which has more print.

I don't consider the NYT credible.
That's why I said " perhaps"
Call it an educated guess if you like! . Clever use of dashes 😏
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, what do you consider credible media then?

Jim, your leaving out the beginning of that quote from the NYT changes the intent of the sentence.

That's the point Brian !!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In what way? The NYT admits there are serious allegations, then states that some of the hubub is nothing more than political smear.

When the NYT ran a front-page story claiming that John McCain's adopted daughter was actually his biological daughter with a mistress, and there was no truth to that...did the NYT admit that it was all political smear? Or is 'smear' only involved when conservatives point out wrongdoing of liberals?

You need to re-read the article.

The quote is as follows:

"To Mr. Menendez and his staff, the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear."

You said that "By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear..." Then you quoted part of the sentence from Menendez or a staffer giving the impression the sentence was from the NYT when infact it was by Mendendez/staffer.

The very next paragraph says "But the results have been troubling revelations. Those documented by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other newspapers involve serious accusations of favoritism by the senator."

That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges).

Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them.

"That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges)."

I didn't deny that. But why do you think the NYT found it relevent to mention that some paid GOP operatives are involved? If the story is true, why mention the source? The answer, is to diminish the seriousness of teh charges, and shift some of the blame to Senator Menendez's political opponents.

"Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them"

Earlier, you made some smug comment to one of the conservatives here about the fact that if he couldn't do the google searches on his own, you'd help him with it. Let's assume you are capable of doing the same Google search I did.

I found coverage in the NYT of the Rubio water drinking. Even if I hadn't, my point about media bias was still valid. I did not say that every single liberal media outlet, with zero exceptions, was trumping up the Rubio water thing. Had I said that, your responses would be relevent. Since I didn't say that, your responses are not as relevent, though they are somewhat relevent. Pointing out one single exception does not refute a generalized statement.

I see you won't comment on MSNBC's coverages of the Rubio water drinking, versus their coverage of the Menendez thing. I wonder why that could be? Hmmm, that's a real head-scratcher.


.

nm