Media bias at work.

[New Chalcedon]

I ran across a recent case - blaring and obvious - of media bias, and thought I'd share it with NSG. It involves two Congressmen both caught in marital indiscretions. I will repeat the details of the two cases, and see how many people correctly pick the two Congressmen.

Congressman #1 is caught cheating on his wife by sexting strange women. The media turns the affair into a three-ring circus, and eventually - under pressure from his own party - the Congressman resigns first his leadership positions, then his seat in Congress.

Congressman #2 is caught cheating on his wife by keeping a mistress, a mistres he first seduced as a practising doctor - she was the patient. Furthermore, despite being "pro-life", he pressured her to abort their unborn child, was reckless with handguns around both wife and mistress, and behaved abusively toward his (soon-to-be ex) wife. The media systematically ignores the story, even after it comes out in court, and then exerts no pressure at all on the Congressman to resign his leadership positions or his seat.

So; who are the congressmen? Be sure to think of your answers before reading the spoiler:

Congressman #1 is Anthony Weiner (D-NY-09). The media hounded him out of office after it was revealed that he had tweeted suggestive photos of himself to a follower on Twitter.
Congressman #2 is Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-04). Over a decade after Congressman DesJarlais divorced his first wife, and the documents suggesting the abortion pressure were released in open court, the media are finally talking a little about it. And not without running the whole "He said, she said" angle, implicitly accusing the Democrats of character assassination in the process.

So much for "liberal bias in the media". It seems that there are indeed double standards for politicians of the two parties - only, the media holds Democrats to much higher standards in both their personal and their professional lives, whilst ignoring the hypocrisies of "pro-life, pro-family" Republicans cheating on their wives, then urging their mistresses to get the very abortions they attempt to criminalise. And only now - a decade after the documents came out in open court - does the media even begin touching the story.

Keep up the good work, media morons! I'm sure the GOP will be grateful for all the water you systematically carry for them - some day.

[Sebastistan]

I Weiner right. Probably because of his name. I mean, how awesome is it that the man who's scandal involved sending a woman a picture of his penis had the name Weiner?!

But on a more serious note, I've never even heard of the second man.

EDIT: I don't live in the US so I can't really comment on their media bias, but I'd guess it varies from network to network.

[New Chalcedon]

I Weiner right. Probably because of his name. I mean, how awesome is it that the man who's scandal involved sending a woman a picture of his penis had the name Weiner?!

But on a more serious note, I've never even heard of the second man.

EDIT: I don't live in the US so I can't really comment on their media bias, but I'd guess it varies from network to network.

And the fact that you've never heard of Congressman #2 - despite his objectively far worse indiscretions - is rather the point. Had the media devoted one-tenth the effort to covering his scandal as they did the scandal of sexting a follower on Twitter, you would have heard of him. But the media, in their infinite wisdom (And bias) think it's not newsworthy that a pro-life, pro-family politicians both cheats on his wife (with one of his patients, no less!) and then pressures the mistress into aborting the resulting pregnancy.

[Xochi]

Yeah, here's the difference, Anthony Weiner outright lied to the media (a la Richard Nixon) and let an FBI investigation begin before eventually owning up to it. Lie to the media, they ain't gonna be your friend. Plus, Weiner was generally just a dick (pun intended) to pretty much everyone. So he got what he deserved without any "bias" working in any different direction.

[Saint-Thor]

The only question should be: are there any unbiased media left in the US?

[Cannot think of a name]

Isn't the second one a relatively new story, though? It might be a little too early to assess that, I just heard about it earlier today.

[Xathranaar]

Yeah, here's the difference, Anthony Weiner outright lied to the media (a la Richard Nixon) and let an FBI investigation begin before eventually owning up to it. Lie to the media, they ain't gonna be your friend. Plus, Weiner was generally just a dick (pun intended) to pretty much everyone. So he got what he deserved without any "bias" working in any different direction.

I suppose I should be outraged at this.

But all of my outrage is currently occupied with the knowledge that the FBI launched an investigation into some dirty photos (of an adult) sent via cell phone.

Way to put my tax dollars to work guys.

[The Black Forrest]

Well? The media does a little more then simple bias.

If a person is going to say "who?" then they probably aren't interested in his actions. At best they may get a chuckle or fucking hypocrite comment. So what good is a story?

I think a large part of Weiners air time was due to his name.

[Tergnitz]

The only question should be: are there any unbiased media left in the US?

The BBC.

[PapaJacky]

The only question should be: are there any unbiased media left in the US?

No, because there is no such thing as "without bias". I can make a quantum state analogy right now but reasons.

[Condunum]

The only question should be: are there any unbiased media left in the US?

The BBC.

Nope. Not even they remain unbiased.

As much as they try, anyhow.

[Moving Forward Inc]

The only question should be: are there any unbiased media left in the US?

The BBC.

Fuck no.

[New Chalcedon]

Isn't the second one a relatively new story, though? It might be a little too early to assess that, I just heard about it earlier today.

You're right - it only happened a decade ago, and Congressman #2's opponent only drew a whole heap of attention to it in 2010. Far too soon to expect the media to have picked up on it.

/sarcasm

Well? The media does a little more then simple bias.

If a person is going to say "who?" then they probably aren't interested in his actions. At best they may get a chuckle or fucking hypocrite comment. So what good is a story?

I think a large part of Weiners air time was due to his name.

Anthony Weiner wasn't exactly a household name before the scandal, either.

The only question should be: are there any unbiased media left in the US?

I was speaking of aggregate bias, not individual outlet bias.

[Risottia]

Yeah, here's the difference, Anthony Weiner outright lied to the media (a la Richard Nixon) and let an FBI investigation begin before eventually owning up to it. Lie to the media, they ain't gonna be your friend. Plus, Weiner was generally just a dick (pun intended) to pretty much everyone. So he got what he deserved without any "bias" working in any different direction.

I suppose I should be outraged at this.

But all of my outrage is currently occupied with the knowledge that the FBI launched an investigation into some dirty photos (of an adult) sent via cell phone.

Way to put my tax dollars to work guys.

Not only. Why should the media ask anything about the private life of a politician, and expect an answer? This is not information, this is infotainment.

[New Chalcedon]

I suppose I should be outraged at this.

But all of my outrage is currently occupied with the knowledge that the FBI launched an investigation into some dirty photos (of an adult) sent via cell phone.

Way to put my tax dollars to work guys.

Not only. Why should the media ask anything about the private life of a politician, and expect an answer? This is not information, this is infotainment.

Not that this stops them asking any damn question they please - of Democratic politicians. They know that the Democrats are, by and large, too whipped to cry "Media bias!" the way Republicans have since Spiro T. Agnew pioneered the tactic.

[Moving Forward Inc]

tbh, all news in the USA is biased.
Fox news is clearly biased in favor of the republicans.
Other news will mostly favor liberals, sometimes left-wing ideology combined with social conservatism (disgusting!).

What I am yet to see is unbiased news, or libertarian biased news that doesn't come from the net.

[Sebastistan]

Well? The media does a little more then simple bias.

If a person is going to say "who?" then they probably aren't interested in his actions. At best they may get a chuckle or fucking hypocrite comment. So what good is a story?

I think a large part of Weiners air time was due to his name.

Anthony Weiner wasn't exactly a household name before the scandal, either.

I believe he was referring to the double entendre of his actions in relation to his last name.

[Tubbsalot]

I gave myself some leeway for identifying the politicians, given that I'm not American. I considered that I had recognised both of them because the moment you asked the question, I knew the poor guy who had been picked on by the bastard media vultures was a Democrat, and the sinister doctor-pervert left to ply his evil trade by the callous and profit-driven media would be a Republican.

does this suggest anything to you

[Vitaphone Racing]

Isn't the second one a relatively new story, though? It might be a little too early to assess that, I just heard about it earlier today.

You're right - it only happened a decade ago, and Congressman #2's opponent only drew a whole heap of attention to it in 2010. Far too soon to expect the media to have picked up on it.

/sarcasm

Source? The earliest links I could find which detailed DesJarlais' pressuring of his mistress to get an abortion was October 2012.

[New Chalcedon]

You're right - it only happened a decade ago, and Congressman #2's opponent only drew a whole heap of attention to it in 2010. Far too soon to expect the media to have picked up on it.

/sarcasm

Source? The earliest links I could find which detailed DesJarlais' pressuring of his mistress to get an abortion was October 2012.

The abortion is indeed a relatively new story. The treatment of his wife, however, cropped up in the 2010 race. And the DesJarlais campaign explicitly called the abortion part of it "old news".

[Vitaphone Racing]

Source? The earliest links I could find which detailed DesJarlais' pressuring of his mistress to get an abortion was October 2012.

The abortion is indeed a relatively new story. The treatment of his wife, however, cropped up in the 2010 race. And the DesJarlais campaign explicitly called the abortion part of it "old news".

Who gives a shit about allegations that take place inside a divorce? It didn't get much media attention because it couldn't be proven, one's word against anothers.

[Vulkland]

The abortion is indeed a relatively new story. The treatment of his wife, however, cropped up in the 2010 race. And the DesJarlais campaign explicitly called the abortion part of it "old news".

Who gives a shit about allegations that take place inside a divorce? It didn't get much media attention because it couldn't be proven, one's word against anothers.

Except for, you know, transcripts of a phone call that he himself recorded.

[Ethel mermania]

Yeah, here's the difference, Anthony Weiner outright lied to the media (a la Richard Nixon) and let an FBI investigation begin before eventually owning up to it. Lie to the media, they ain't gonna be your friend. Plus, Weiner was generally just a dick (pun intended) to pretty much everyone. So he got what he deserved without any "bias" working in any different direction.

I suppose I should be outraged at this.

But all of my outrage is currently occupied with the knowledge that the FBI launched an investigation into some dirty photos (of an adult) sent via cell phone.

Way to put my tax dollars to work guys.

That was because weiner said his phone was hacked, as part of his attempt to evade the truth.

[Lackadaisical2]

Well? The media does a little more then simple bias.

If a person is going to say "who?" then they probably aren't interested in his actions. At best they may get a chuckle or fucking hypocrite comment. So what good is a story?

I think a large part of Weiners air time was due to his name.

He was int he news often enough before the scandal too. Kind of a Democratic attack dog the way I remember it, have to admit that from a Republican POV, I'd be really glad hes gone.

[Free South Califas]

tbh, all news in the USA is biased.
Fox news is clearly biased in favor of the republicans.
Other news will mostly favor liberals, sometimes left-wing ideology combined with social conservatism (disgusting!).

What I am yet to see is unbiased news, or libertarian biased news that doesn't come from the net.

There is a channel on DIRECTV called "Free Speech TV" that is pretty good; it's viewer-supported and is explicitly for the 99% (which is quite a centrist perspective if you think about how class really breaks down in our society). DIRECTV also has "Link TV" which mostly runs documentaries, so it has a different focus than the 'breaking news' type of channels but covers issues in more depth; they mix solid political documentaries with short news programs from Al Jazeera and Mosaic and pepper in some New Age stuff in the late nights or whatever. There's also "Current TV" which skews a bit more liberal with the Young Turks but runs some good shows and documentaries and borrows heavily from libertarian symbolism.