That Pesky Little ‘R’ Is Nowhere To Be Found
July 7th, 2003
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.
July 8th, 2003 at 12:32 am
If you live in MA then you should know the governor’s party affiliation. If you don’t, shame on you.
July 8th, 2003 at 2:51 am
Thats hardly the point. Its called double standards.
July 8th, 2003 at 8:19 am
Shaggy, obviously you should know, just based on my blog entry, that I am well aware of Romney’s political party.
However, do most people reading the story outside of the New England area know? I am certainly not aware of the political parties of most of the state governors - so I don’t expect most people outside of Massachusetts, or even New England, to be aware of Romney’s political affiliation.
July 8th, 2003 at 8:22 am
Gotta hand it to you Matt. That’s probably something I would have overlooked at first. Good call. I will be looking extra hard in future news stories.
July 8th, 2003 at 8:17 pm
Here in Texas we tend to assume that any politician from Mass. is a liberal. I am sure the major media would have no problem with knowingly allowing us to erroneously believe that a democrat committed this good samaritan act.
July 8th, 2003 at 8:20 pm
Youre from Texas? Yess! I live in the Bryan-College Station area.
July 8th, 2003 at 8:44 pm
Whenever a Government official does something that might be considered newsworthy they almost always leave off affilation, spare the whining.
July 9th, 2003 at 1:19 am
I’m still perplexed by the fact that MA elects Rep. governors while electing a Dem. legislature and Dem. Reps and Sens.
It doesn’t seem to make any sense.
(that being said, most things in MA don’t make sense–case in point: The Big Dig)
July 9th, 2003 at 1:21 pm
if a Dem rescued anyone, headlinewould be, “Joe Politician, Democrat Governor, rescues lives, praised by local Democrats”
July 9th, 2003 at 2:55 pm
Java in a real newspaper (Not a propaganda rag) they dont add party affiliation.
July 9th, 2003 at 10:19 pm
Courtney-
yup, went to College in Dallas,
now med school in Houston.
I am going to make a wildly implausible guess that you are an aggie.
July 10th, 2003 at 1:19 am
And your wildly implausible guess was wrong! I’m going to Blinn for their Nursing program then off to UTA for my BS-N. The Ags just dont have nursing and I’d rather have the career than a ring.
July 10th, 2003 at 2:49 pm
Um yeah: they would if it was an article praising a Democrat. Get with it… come out from under the rock you live under.
July 10th, 2003 at 3:03 pm
Show me one that is not a Op-Ed, til then STFU.
July 10th, 2003 at 4:45 pm
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/local_regional/romney07082003.htm
Rep. Jay R. Kaufman (D-Lexington)
Rep. Paul Kujawski (D-Webster)
House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading)
Rep. Eric T. Turkington (D-Falmouth)
Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord) (says “I think it’s a natural instinct to save people — but then I’m a Democrat”)
this has D’s and R’s all over the place.
Don’t you read the newspaper?
If I can ever find an example of an article written about a democrat doing something heroic, I’ll post that link… but let’s be honest… when was last time a democrat went into a body of water with the intent of saving a life, as opposed to ending a life.
The point of this whole argument is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to downplay heroics of anyone, Republican, Democrat, or anything. Yet these newspapers, the liberal politicians quoted within them, and people like you, continue to perpetuate these ridiculous comments out of pure bigotry and hatred towards people of the opposite party. How different is it to hate someone cause they are of different political party versus someone of a different, reace, religion or creed.
July 10th, 2003 at 5:00 pm
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/lnib207102003.htm
Here is another one regarding Ted Kennedy:
So, here we have an article (in a local paper) that appears to be designed to give the not so subtle hint that Kennedy is a compassionate towards minorities, and cares oh so deeply for them. And did I mention that (D-Mass.) after his name…in the BOSTON Herald, whose reader likely ALREADY KNOW that he is a democrat.
July 10th, 2003 at 10:47 pm
I’m no aggie, either.
I went to UT Arlington’s Russian program, so I guess I am a longhorn by default, but I never really understood that whole rivalry, anyway.
July 11th, 2003 at 2:43 am
How’d you like UTA? I’m kinda iffy about its location. Just kinda stuck in there in the middle of the street you know. But I hear they have a great Nursing program.
July 11th, 2003 at 1:00 pm
Um yeah, time for you to STFU….
July 11th, 2003 at 11:23 pm
Hell yes! You rock Java. FUUY.
July 14th, 2003 at 2:02 pm
Courtney im going to assume that meant Fuck U Um Yeah. Still like I said very rarely is someones party affiliation mentioned in a “real” news report, A Kennedy promotion in Boston really doesnt count.
July 14th, 2003 at 2:28 pm
A “real” news report, according to your definition, is one that doesn’t prove you wrong… you FUCKING LIBERAL IDIOT. You just looooove chaning the rules for yourself when it’s convenient… grow up. It doesn’t count??????????? You said the same thing about any vote for Bush in 2000… Tell you what, Um Yeah, YOU DON’T COUNT…
Don’t like that do you??? Everything counts. If a virgin gets laid by someone he/she ends up disliking, you can’t just say, oh well, that doesn’t count…..
July 14th, 2003 at 7:35 pm
Its not really a news report its more like a Kennedy advertisement, If you are going to get that upset over someone tooting a Kennedys horn in Boston than you are a sad individual.
July 14th, 2003 at 8:06 pm
Last i checked the contents of the Herald, there is no section called “Kennedy Advertisements.” You are just creating an excuse to try and delineate from your wrongful assumption… God damn.. can’t you admit you are wrong.. be a fucking man.
July 14th, 2003 at 8:25 pm
Either way its one article, and Im not wrong. Basically anything involving Kennedy and Boston will show the Kennedys in a positive light. If seeing something like that is the most you have to worry about consider yourself lucky.
July 15th, 2003 at 1:26 pm
It does not appear that Newsday prints party affiliation next to any individual, even in policial stories:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-bc-ny–druglaws0715jul15,0,2752745.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
Gov. George Pataki on Tuesday released his latest proposal to overhaul the Rockefeller-era drug laws that require long prison sentences for possession and sale of even small amounts of narcotics.
July 16th, 2003 at 1:23 pm
Newsday is a New York based publication. I wouldn’t try to base your opinion solely on one example kid. Anyone can look up an article about or mentioning a politician that won’t specify their party affiliation. There has been no claim by me or anyone else that any publication exclusively practices the labelling or not-labelling of politicians’ parties.
July 17th, 2003 at 11:20 am
http://www.wnbc.com/politics/2336284/detail.html
I wonder if this is a “real” news report… and guess what, it says,
Nadler, a Manhattan Democrat, underwent the first procedure almost a year ago, and has since shed about 75 pounds.
July 17th, 2003 at 1:13 pm
Java how much free time do you have?
July 17th, 2003 at 1:20 pm
enough to read the Drudge Report to find that story, and obviously, since you’ve resorted to personal attacks, you’ve obviously been proven wrong, refuse to admit it, so are going for cheap shots…. you liberals are sooooooooooo predictable.
July 17th, 2003 at 3:52 pm
Damn you are thin-skinned, since when is asking how much free time you got a personal attack?
July 17th, 2003 at 4:19 pm
i can hear the tone in your voice.
You obviously chose not to repsond to the fact that I had yet again proved you wrong, and chose rather to redirect the discussion towards asking me how much free time I have. Now, I’m not an idiot (such as many liberals), but such a comment made in the hastily way you did, could only be construed as a bellicose.
July 17th, 2003 at 5:03 pm
Um Yeah has never had truth or logic on his side. His arguments here have never been worth the toilet paper he wipes his arse with.
July 17th, 2003 at 5:08 pm
he’s taking a long time to conjure up a retort.
July 17th, 2003 at 10:13 pm
All I said it is fairly rare for Newspapers to add politcal affilation, you are know perusing every single newspaper in America in an attempt to prove me “wrong”.
July 17th, 2003 at 10:14 pm
Conjure a retort? I have a job.
July 17th, 2003 at 10:38 pm
Um Yeah, those are your words. You never said “extremely rare” you were quite definitive it your accusation.
July 18th, 2003 at 12:48 am
Whenever a Government official does something that might be considered newsworthy they almost always leave off affilation, spare the whining.
Forgot the qualifier usually on the other one, sue me.
July 18th, 2003 at 8:41 am
how can you still claim this when I’ve found examples for you?
I’m not seeking out evidence, but rest assured, when I come across something in my normal surf habit of READING THE NEWS, I’ll again prove you wrong.
July 18th, 2003 at 1:25 pm
Um Yeah is a typical liberal. If the truth doesn’t equal his opinion, the truth is suddenly flawed, or he changes his original opinion or accusation in an attempt to distract from the fact that he was blatently proven wrong.
Liberal rarely need or use the truth when they debate.
July 18th, 2003 at 1:30 pm
Liberals and truth??? how can you use those words in the same sentence?????
July 18th, 2003 at 1:33 pm
Yes, it is quite an oxymoron isn’t it?
July 18th, 2003 at 4:45 pm
Republicans really shouldnt be talking about being defenders of the truth, what with Shrub being caught red handed lying and all.
July 18th, 2003 at 4:56 pm
Oh and Speaking of Republicans lying, there is also Ann Coulters latest “Big Book O’ Lies and Inaccuracies”. And also Matt are you going to admit you were wrong about David Brock?
July 18th, 2003 at 5:37 pm
Just admit you were wrong.. i know that’s hard for a liberal….
How you can call Ann Coulter’s books “lies” when she cites her sources:
“Slander” had 35 (of 241 pages total) of citations
“Treason” had nearly 50 pages (of 339 pages total) citations. You question her facts??? Look it up. On the other hand, a liberal tries to make a point, there are no citaitons.
Go figure. I guess this is the moment you say that her sources are flawed so in effect, her books are too. Ever here of the NY times? LexisNexis™? You live by left-wing papers like the NY Times (which Ann quotes in her books to illustrate left-wing bias), and LexisNexis™ “provides authoritative legal, news, public records and business information” (lexisnexis.com).
July 18th, 2003 at 5:38 pm
For Hitlery’s book, you just gota take her word for it, seeing as she conveniently didn’t recall any of the information until an $8 million advance came into her lap.
July 18th, 2003 at 5:41 pm
http://www.aggressive-voice.com/coulteranalysis.html
http://www.treasononline.blogspot.com/
http://www.anncoultertreason.blogspot.com/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/071803a.html
Oh and footnotes dont mean jack when you distort everything else.
July 18th, 2003 at 5:44 pm
Wrong about what Um Yeah?
I know you’d love to believe I’m wrong and your right, but you’ve shown nothing to prove such. What you expect myself, and everyone else to do, is to take one liberal person’s word over a conservative person’s word. All you’ve proven is you’ve found some liberal who’s published something that you agree.
Wow, big find there.
I’ve met David Horowitz, and talked with him before. He is an intelligent guy. He’s not a liar.
Read the article you pasted the link for more carefully. You’d like to considering it a damning article, but it hardly is.
You’re little “Why don’t you admit your wrong” lines only serve your ego, and have no reflection of the actual content of this discussion. If you want to believe you’re actually smart, hell, who am I to stop you, you can live in your liberal dream world if you want to.
July 18th, 2003 at 6:25 pm
Hey UY… address my comment regarding the fact that Ann Coulter cites her material rather extensively, instead of sidestepping the issue and saying, “uh, huh-huh, she exaggerates everything else… so everything is lies… huh-huh.”
July 18th, 2003 at 6:37 pm
Wow Um Yeah, gee you’re quiet the resourceful one aren’t you? Not only have you accused Ann Coulter of distorting factual information, but you seem to believe that anything liberal is genuinely objective and always true. This is your problem. You don’t care about truth, you care about finding something you agree with so you can call it truth. You think you’ve found gems or something? You showed us two lefty blogs, an allegedly objective commentary site, and an overwhelming anti-Bush website… Do you consider this a holy grail of truth or something??? Please.
You need to learn that just because you can find material that agrees with your opinion that doesn’t suddenly qualify it as being the truth.
July 18th, 2003 at 8:32 pm
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..?
July 18th, 2003 at 10:20 pm
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.
July 18th, 2003 at 10:29 pm
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.
July 19th, 2003 at 11:00 pm
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???!!
July 20th, 2003 at 12:34 am
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.
July 20th, 2003 at 12:51 am
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.
July 20th, 2003 at 10:52 am
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.
July 20th, 2003 at 12:36 pm
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.
July 20th, 2003 at 12:56 pm
Wow, you’re special. You perused Coulter’s book. That makes you not only objective, but an expert too!
July 20th, 2003 at 2:06 pm
And whats your point?
July 20th, 2003 at 4:25 pm
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.”
July 20th, 2003 at 9:29 pm
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.
July 21st, 2003 at 1:05 pm
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?
July 21st, 2003 at 2:52 pm
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.
July 21st, 2003 at 3:40 pm
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)
July 22nd, 2003 at 7:53 am
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.
July 22nd, 2003 at 7:56 am
And I’m not him, as I expect you can tell by the writing style and the topic selection.
July 22nd, 2003 at 11:35 pm
Newsday never givees party affiliaitions?
Are you sure?
100% Positive on that?
I am just asking, merely want to be sure.
July 23rd, 2003 at 9:04 am
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.
July 23rd, 2003 at 9:20 am
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.
July 23rd, 2003 at 11:13 am
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?
July 23rd, 2003 at 11:16 am
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.
July 23rd, 2003 at 1:48 pm
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.
July 23rd, 2003 at 1:59 pm
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.
July 24th, 2003 at 2:02 pm
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.
July 24th, 2003 at 4:14 pm
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!!
July 24th, 2003 at 6:36 pm
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.
May 24th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
betting sports
bill,raccoon,sheet artillery servers writhed distinguishable:submultiplexed betting online http://www.get-betting.com/