« The Real Grassroots Campaign of 2004 | Home | Leave My Coffee Alone »
Why Janklow Isn’t A Media Frenzy
By Matt Margolis | December 1, 2003
I was initially suprised at how little attention Rep. Bill Janklow is getting since his driving accident back in August which resulted in the death of a motocyclist. Janklow faces charges of manslaughter, speeding, running a stop sign and reckless driving. The Republican Congressman coudl face up to 10 years in prison, as well as a House ethics committee investigation.
So why isn’t this story getting the attention that the Kobe Bryant case is, or the Scott Peterson trial?
I detect a different kind of liberal bias here. Under normal circumstance, the liberal media would probably be all over this story… Except for one thing…
Senator Edward (Ted) M. Kennedy, of Massachusetts.
Elected to the United States Senate in 1962, Ted Kennedy killed an innocent women July 19, 1969. The extent of Kennedy’s legal problems was a simple guilty plea for leaving the scene of an accident. Kennedy got away with murder.
He has since been repeatedly reelected by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
While Bill Janklow stands trial for manslaughter, Ted Kennedy remains in the Senate, organizing filibusters, driking Chivas, and bashing President Bush.
The reason why the networks aren’t focusing on Bill Janklow is because they know Ted Kennedy’s history will be questioned and scrutnized.
As jury selection begins in the Janklow case, only one news network has a story on the main page of their website. FoxNews.com.
It suddenly becomes very clear now doesn’t it?
Topics: Thoughts |
Related Posts:
December 1st, 2003 at 2:34 pm
Kobe is a much bigger figure than Rep. Jankow, there’s no douting that.
Same goes for the Peterson case. The media made so much out of her dissapearance, that interest in the case snowballed
December 1st, 2003 at 2:41 pm
That’s the point Jaws, the media didn’t eat up this story. A story like this should have been big news…
December 1st, 2003 at 2:44 pm
good point…
i thought the same you did.
December 1st, 2003 at 3:03 pm
My god- are you paranoid or what? How can you contort your logic so much? At best, the lack of coverage is due to the fact that there is nothing sensational about the case and overall it doesn’t merit national coverage. At worst it is evidence of a CONSERVATIVE bias in the news.
But claiming that it is not being covered because the media doesn’t want to make Teddy Kennedy look bad for something that happened nearly 40 years ago?
You’ve gone off the deep end with this one Margolis.
December 1st, 2003 at 3:13 pm
Why is this case less media worthy than the Gary Condit/Chandra Levy story?
December 1st, 2003 at 4:24 pm
You’re proving my point that at worst, this is an example of CONSERVATIVE bias in the media. Condit was a Democrat– 24 hour coverage. Jenklow is Republican — hardly any coverage. Only crackpot would try to argue that this was evidence of a liberal bias.
However, I don’t media bias has anything to do with the lack of coverage. It is simply not sensational enough to warrant 24 hour coverage. To answer your question, there are several differences between the Jenklow case and other more sensational cases. In the Jenklow matter:
1. There is no sex.
2. There are no allegations of drugs / alcohol.
3. There is no intern / employer relationship.
4. There is no sex.
5. Nobody is missing.
6. There are no allegations of murder, premeditated or otherwise.
7. There is no sex.
Overall, its just a sad story of a relatively common incident: a traffic death. However, alleging that Teddy Kennedy has such sway with each of the competing networks that he can prevent them from covering Jenklow’s case because it would draw comparisons to an incident 35 years ago and make him look bad… can you say “crackpot?”
December 1st, 2003 at 4:27 pm
So why is that the so-called conservative biased Fox News had a piece on it, but no other networks…
Is Fox News Liberal now? Or perhaps is it “fair and balanced?”
December 1st, 2003 at 4:38 pm
They always, always, ALWAYS introduce Condit as a Conservative Democrat.
And since you call another Conservative Democrat (Zell Miller) a traitor, i guess you would say the same about Condit.
December 1st, 2003 at 4:53 pm
Well the Globe picked up the story today as well…
Personally, I’m sort of happy that this isn’t another circus like case story. I’m sick of the current ones anyway.
It seems like when there’s a missing person involved the news jumps on it more (Condit, Peterson)
December 1st, 2003 at 6:37 pm
To continue on my previous comment, I don’t think this is a Conservative/Liberal bias issue.
I think this is much more of a general “will this story attract viewers” issue. That’s ultimately what it boils down to.
Apparently the networks think that the Peterson and Kobe cases will draw more viewers so they focus on those instead of this story.
December 1st, 2003 at 10:00 pm
While we’re discussing Sen. Ted “Swimmer” Kennedy, I thought I’d share this website I came across.
December 2nd, 2003 at 9:08 am
Oddly, most of the comments I’ve run across that call for Janklow’s ouster are from the right. Michelle Malkin had a seriously nasty column on Janklow’s history of driving problems in September. I posted about it on my blog:
link
I don’t think it has anything to do with Kennedy; I agree with Mr. Whitaker that it isn’t getting a lot of coverage because Janklow is relatively obscure, and there is no sex involved. It’s NOT because of a pervasive conservative bias.
December 2nd, 2003 at 9:09 am
oops, buggered the link.
link
Sorry about that.
December 2nd, 2003 at 7:42 pm
Matt, each day you become less and less rational while becoming more and more of a right wing jingoist.
December 3rd, 2003 at 8:16 am
I find it hilarious that Orwell claims that Matt is becoming “less rational” and a “right-wing jingoist” (the new liberal lefty buzzphrase). Have you seen some of the conspiricy theories posted at Atrios and DU the last few months? Matt’s theory is quite rational in comparison. I personally agree with Cole Whittaker’s idea of “since there’s no sex, there’s no coverage”.
December 3rd, 2003 at 11:47 am
Some guy killed somebody, most probably accidentally. This happens thousands of times per year. It’s a boring story, so no coverage. Duh. Evidence of left-wing conspiracy in the news? Please. That’s *really* tortured logic.
December 8th, 2003 at 2:32 pm
Bill Janklow’s trial is almost over. The repercussions to the State of South Dakota if he is found innocent will be enormous. The best motorcycle rally in the country will be boycotted beyond the belief of Sturgis and all the vendors who sell to motorcyclists. If he is found innocent (how could he be?) it will be the first time in sixteen years I won’t be visiting the Black Hills. I would be a vocal part of an entire state boycott. If he goes to jail then the rally will continue. Riders stand for justice and fairness and freedom above all.
John MacMillam
JohnnyOhio5@Hotmail.com
December 8th, 2003 at 2:51 pm
My theory is that he’s going to walk.
This is not a reflection of my belief of his guilt or innocence, but just based on what I heard his defense was, the fact the Daschle testified on his behalf…
Hey, I could be wrong, we’ll just wait an see.
December 8th, 2003 at 2:52 pm
I smell a bet…
December 9th, 2003 at 10:34 am
Well, Janklow has been found guilty. He should have realized that having Daschle testify on his behalf was the kiss of death.
December 9th, 2003 at 12:35 pm
Now that Janklow has been found guilty, I think it’s time for Ted Kennedy to stand trial.