Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
another long article yesterday in the NY Times about it.
|
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?