Some rather exciting news today. Apparently, my governor, Mitt Romney, and two of his sons rescued a family from their sinking boat this past weekend.
Quite an interesting story to say the least. I don’t believe this is a common thing to read about a governor.
Yes, there were other people involved, however, the truth is, Mitt’s involvement gives this story an interesting twist… Certainly, the act is no more or less heroic because of who is involved, but, I wouldn’t be writing about this story if that was the case.
Probably not for the reason you are thinking.
Mitt Romney is a Republican. Not once in the story is his political party mentioned.
The first line reads:
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and two of his sons helped rescue a New Jersey family from a sinking boat in Lake Winnipesaukee over the weekend, a New Hampshire official said.
So, we can see, the story make no effort to hide who Mitt Romney is. It just seems the chose to leave what he is.
I know this may sound nitpicky. It’s not a political story, it’s not generally important to the story itself what political party Romney belongs to.
However, it is a bit odd that they chose not to put that ‘R’ after his name – especially since he did something quite heroic.
I could cite examples of how the media selectively decides when and where to insert a politician’s party into a story – but I don’t the effort is that necessary. To name one instance where this took place, we can look at the Gary Condit story. His little ‘D’ was rarely seen next to his name. Even when his poltical party was identified, he was labeled a “conservative Democrat.”
So what does this all mean?
Think about it. I’m not saying they should have made a specific effort to call attention to Romney’s political party.
I am however, bold as it may be, am suggesting that had it been a Democrat politician in his place, you’d see the ‘D’, or even saw “Democrat Governor etc. etc.”
Pay attention to these stories, they say a lot about the media.
I however, would like to praise Mitt Romney (R-MA), his two sons, and the rest of the individuals involved for being good samaritans. I hope they all get the credit they deserve.
since i normally scim your articles matt, I just noticed now that you mentioned Condit and how he was labeled a “conservative democrat.” This, is definately an example where the chose to point “HEY LOOK!!! THIS GUY IS CONSERVATIVE!!! HE’S NOT REALLY ONE OF US!!”
Do they say Ted Kennedy is a liberal democrat? or Hitlery? or whoever..?
Matt Horowitz denounced Treason as well. Also Brock said something about Horowitz , he came out and said Brock lied the Man in question (Conway) came out and said Horowitz actually said that.
No, Horowitz did not “denounce” Treason. He quite clearly expressed admiration of it, but took issue primarily with Coulter’s blunt and often satirical style. I’m not going to pick apart Horowitz’s words, but I have read them, and while he may offer valid points, that doesn’t mean that Coulter is fundamentally wrong in her thesis.
Now, what’s funny to me, is that one minute you were basically denouncing Horowitz, trying to pin him a liar, but the moment you discovered he said something which could be construed as anti-Coulter, or at the least, something your horribly void liberal mind could find agreement with.
I had a feeling you’d take that bait.
He lied in that particular instance, but Horowitz at least had the honesty to call Treason a load of bilge. I mentioned because you were like “All you could find were leftists”. Well so what? WTF do you expect me find Rush talking about how many lies is in treason?
And yes her thesis is fundamentally wrong it is so full of holes it looks like a swiss cheese.
Take the bait???!!
This all goes to prove my point that liberals like yourself only think that only people or opinions that agree with their own are true.
You’ll denounce Horowitz for 99.9% of his words, but the second he says something that you want to agree with, he becomes legitimate for that only.
Have you read “Treason” Um Yeah? Have you attempted to come to your own conclusion about the book rather than believe what your liberal partners in crime tell you to believe? I am willing to bet that you haven’t.
You never cease to amaze me at just how freakin’ blind you are.
Matt, Brock made a book denouncing the hypocrisy and basic scuminess of the Right. Horowitz in an attempt to discredit Brock told a lie (Intentional or not) and he got called on it. Other than that he is not that bad, Least compared to Hannity,Coulter,Limbaugh,Bennet and The Savage Weiner. Ive read parts of Ann Coulters books (how many left wing tomes have you even touched?) Shes insane,(One website called her Goebells with tits) she wouldnt be so bad if people didnt take her so seriously but people do.
You think just because someone writes a book about going from the Right to the Left means that he’s a god or something? Please.
Right, you actually purchased Ann Coulter’s book and read parts of it? What you probably mean by “read parts of it” is that you’ve read the excerpts published on the web by the left wingers who started firing on all cylinders in their damage control effort. Don’t try to act all high and mighty with a claim that you actually attempt to get both sides of the story.
Um Yeah, I’ll give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Suggest me three books by left wing authors. From that list I’ll choose one of them, I’ll put that on my Amazon.com wishlist, and then you have to buy it for me, and I’ll read it cover to cover – or atleast put in an honest effort to do such.
If you don’t want to do that, then this discussion is over. We can go back and forth on this forever and not get anywhere. This thread has gone well beyond the original topic discussed in the blog entry and the point of making comments is talk about the issue I originally wrote about.
Not a cent of the money I earn will go to you, and yes ive actually picked them up and perused them. Ann Coulters works are insane ramblings her Thesis is garbage.
Wow, you’re special. You perused Coulter’s book. That makes you not only objective, but an expert too!
And whats your point?
Amazing… how can you call her writing garbage??? It’s all clearly cited, in a fashion that would make any english professor proud (unless a liberal professor, of course). As stated previously, Coulter’s roughly 50 pages of citations for the 340 page book proves that her information is not her “opinion” but rather analysis of accepted truths and declassified documents.
Perusing Coulter’s book does not do it justice. Because of the material, I’ve found myself rereading passages to make sure I’ve read things correctly (that and the screaming kids at the pool distracting me). If Matt “perused” one of your liberal garbs and made a remark about it, denouncing it, etc., you’d say, Oh no, you have to read the whoel damn thing. So, I challenge you to read the whole thing. Coulter can’t be read in tiny passages to be expected to be interpreted appropraitly. She writes like a layer, but it doesn’t mean you can read the last line of the verdict, or passages of the sentencing to get the full story. Read it cover to cover, and after that, read “Slander.”
Clearly cited? Ok one example was she cited the NY Times as saying Reagan was a Cowboy, when the Times actually quoted a Reagan administartion official. Her books are drivel , if you dont take them seriously I have no problem but if you do you are insane. Tell you what read every part of all the links I provided and then maybe I will take a closer look at her books.
The likelihood of me reading your left-wing propaganda is a likely as you agreeing to read “Slander” and “Treason” cover to cover…. Why should we read your leftist crap, when you wouldn’t consider reading Coulter cover-to-cover?
I called up Newsday on Friday and checked with them.
They said it is policy not to use the (X-XX) moniker in their reporting. They have never used the (X-XX) convention. The reason it’s not in the story you quote is because that story is from Newsday. If it were from the AP Wire, (X-XX) would be there. There’s a reason I researched newsday – because it was the sole example you used.
Find a new cause. This one is hackery.
i guess in Um Yeah’s logic, Newsday would be only “real newspaper”. Sorry, there are other “real newspapers” out there besides Newsday, and they use (X-XX)
Yes, they do. The example article is from Newsday. The reason they don’t give his party affiliation is because Newsday Never Gives Party Affiliations, making the premise of the entire post fallacious.
And I’m not him, as I expect you can tell by the writing style and the topic selection.
Newsday never givees party affiliaitions?
Are you sure?
100% Positive on that?
I am just asking, merely want to be sure.
Any more 404s you want to link to? Newsday does not post (X-XX)s as their stated policy. Your broken links seem to link to AP wire stories or NY Newsday (different publication) stories.
I’d like to post a retraction – having looked through Newsday, I can make no rhyme or reason to when they post affiliations and when they do not. I know the print version never does, but the electronic version I currently mark as a mystery.
Carry on.
you admitted your wrongful assumption, but still tried to forward the blame elsewhere by saying, “I know the print version never does, but the electronic version I currently mark as a mystery…” which is pathetic. why would they vary the online vs. print editions???? They wouldn’t…
why invest man hours to do something so small?
The links have been fixed.
I appreciate your retraction. I think it can be agreed upon that there generally is no set standard as to how a paper uses party affiliation. The practice can vary from publication to publication, local to national stories, and preference/choice of the writer of the story. My initial point was that the latter variable is what makes a difference in whether or not someone like Romney, a Republican, gets labelled a Republican in a story that went on the national wires – to an audience who may not know what he is. Then their is the local story, about a Kennedy, that paints him in a positive light, and the attached his party affiliation, even though the story was local, in a local paper, where there is no question on his affiliation because everyone is well aware.
I know the print version never does because the print version stated to me that they never do. I also know it because I have the print version delivered to me. Untill you can participate in civil discourse, Java, consider yourself ignored.
I would contest however, the assertion that Romney was not labled a Republican due to author bias as being an assertion wholly without evidence. To use that assertion by comparing two different papers with two different policies is the basest of fraud. Until you can determine what Newsday’s online party-affiliation rules are, I would refrain from attributing motive.
No print version of any newspaper I know of publishes a different version on the web editions. Unless Newsday specifically mentions in their online edition that the print edition refrains from including party affliations, I am weary about taking your word for it.
If you consider that in most articles where a democrat is doing something that is construed to be positive that his party affliation is mentioned, and the when a republican does a good thing, the same is not done, and when he does a bad thing, it IS mentioned, that is clearly bias. Heck, as previously mentioned, Condit was labeled a “conservative democrat.” You never hear anyone refered to as a conservative democrat or a liberal republican unless you are talking about congressional bills and voting results.
I dispute your statement that “If you consider that in most articles where a democrat is doing something that is construed to be positive that his party affliation is mentioned, and the when a republican does a good thing, the same is not done.”
Please provide substantiation or retract.
Retract nothing…. this is trend i’ve noticed. My case in point. Mitt Romney, R-MA governor, helped rescue a family after their bought sank on Lake Winnapesake, his (R-MA) was not mentioned. Ted Kennedy, D-MA Senator, announces Mass GEneral Hospital will get hundreds of thousands of dollars for miniroties to be treated with trial cancer drugs, and his party is mentioned.
Look up to the first few entries of the fucking blog you moron!!!! IT’S THERE IN BLACK AND FUCKING WHITE!!
See, here’s the thing you still don’t understand.
The Boston Herald isn’t Newsday. It’s not. If the Herald prints party affialiations and Newsday dosen’t, that dosen’t say anything about bias. To show something about bias, you have to show that *IN ONE NEWSPAPER* that kind of behavior happens.
I know that kind of scientific concept is difficult for you, but I’ll break through your thick skull eventually.
Also, be careful not to pull stories off the AP wire. You wouldn’t want them to come without attribution because of the AP’s policies.
betting sports
bill,raccoon,sheet artillery servers writhed distinguishable:submultiplexed betting online http://www.get-betting.com/