In 1,760 words, Tuesday's front page USA Today article on New York Governor Eliot Spitzer never identified him as a Democrat, not even in photo captions, though the online version was updated with his party affiliation, yet described Senators Larry Craig and David Vitter as Republicans in the first mentions of their names in the story. Here's the lead of the hard copy edition delivered to the MRC's offices Tuesday morning:
New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was the brash Wall Street corruption buster who made ethics his trademark. He was on many lists of future presidential contenders. On Monday, he apologized after he was accused of meeting a high-priced prostitute in a Washington, D.C., hotel last month.
However, in the online “print edition” posting (not the updated throughout the day USAToday.com site) of the March 11 newspaper, “he” was updated to “the Democrat” so the online version begins:
New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was the brash Wall Street corruption buster who made ethics his trademark. He was on many lists of future presidential contenders. On Monday, the Democrat apologized after he was accused of meeting a high-priced prostitute in a Washington, D.C., hotel last month.
In both versions of “Revelation could cost Spitzer political future: N.Y. governor apologizes after report links him to pricey prostitution ring” by Andrea Stone, the 28th paragraph clearly identified two Republicans caught up in charges of scandalous behavior:
Sen. Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, is serving out his term despite being arrested on an accusation of soliciting gay sex in an airport men's room. He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. In a more direct parallel, Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, was identified last year as a client of a D.C. madam. He is still in office. "It's hard for Republicans to argue that Spitzer should go when Vitter is still in," [Larry] Sabato says.
Only hints in the hard copy edition, or the logical implication drawn by careful readers, let on that Spitzer is a Democrat, starting with the Larry Sabato quote above referring to how “it's hard for Republicans to argue that Spitzer should go when Vitter is still in."
Two paragraphs later:
Some Democrats may be hoping for a quick resignation to minimize the repercussions of the explosive disclosure, Democratic strategist Peter Fenn says. "The question is how fast do you deal with this and how fast do you get this off the front pages?" he says.
Four paragraphs after that:
Spitzer is a "super delegate" supporting Clinton against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And six paragraphs later:
The National Republican Congressional Committee called on several freshman House Democrats from New York to return campaign contributions from Spitzer.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
This is SO simple to solve
March 11, 2008 - 17:31 ET by sarcasmo"New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer" is less informative to readers yet it takes up a bit more space than "Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D. NY)". Why are we even still arguing with ostensibly "professional" journalists about this?? I'm continually amazed.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
And the media bias
March 11, 2008 - 17:46 ET by rbosqueAnd the media bias continues...
If he had been a Republican..
March 11, 2008 - 17:57 ET by JnobleThey would have mentioned it at least 15 times within the first paragraph and thrown in a Cheney/Halliburton reference to boot.
Making a mole hill...
March 11, 2008 - 18:12 ET by SyriusCome on...give me a break.
http://www.crooksand...
Time to go to sleep.
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
We all know
March 11, 2008 - 18:21 ET by 10ksnookerHow illegal toe tapping in the bathroom is and the messages it communicates. Prostitution is no big deal, money structuring, everybody does it, false front corporations, everybody does that as well ... even if you are the DEMOCRAT governor. Who would bribe a DEMOCRAT governor, payoffs and kickbacks are much easier ... :-)
Everybody already knows...
March 11, 2008 - 18:54 ET by orlandocajunIt's no secret that spitzer is a Democrat. The fact that the media is trying to conceal it only deminishes what's left of their credibility. If it weren't for hotels giving out free copies of USA Today, they would have been out of business a long time ago.
Oh, please...one would have
March 11, 2008 - 20:50 ET by JerOh, please...one would have to be virtually illiterate or possess the IQ of a clam to "read" the USA Today aritcle and not readily understand that Spitzer is a Democrat.
This story was broken by the New York Times and has been been the subject of intense and comprehensive media coverage which, taken as a whole, leaves no doubt as to which political party Spitzer belongs.
Jer
Jer, are you just playing
March 11, 2008 - 21:16 ET by MrShyJer, are you just playing dumb?
Come on, you have a full understanding of what we're addressing and exposing here. I know you're smart, but you just.... I don't know.... you don't want to believe that the MSM clearly has set-out rules with regards to wording in articles between Dems and Rupubs.
Yes, of COURSE we know they are reporting it all over the place, as they simply can NOT avoid doing that. He's a major politician embroiled in a scandal. We are simply exposing the fact.... FACT... that they are, and I'll go word by word to make it clear:
deliberately - not - applying - his - party - affiliation - because - he - is - a - Democrat - - and - Republicans - ARE - being - tagged.
This is now the, what, 12th? 15th? thread/post in the past 24 hours where we've uncovered this very blatant practice... and these are only the major outlets. It's laughable, in fact.
And you are also smart enough to know that what this does is neutralize things party-wise, so people see it more as "oh, another political scandal" because they know, you know, I know that a major scandal involving a (D) hurts the party during election year.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
Mr Shy...Did you
March 11, 2008 - 21:31 ET by JerMr Shy...Did you read today's [newstand...paper edition] USA Today which contained the article in question? Yes or No? If "yes", you should clearly understand my point. If "no" then you should have held your comment in abeyance until you had.
Please tell me if you have or have not, and then we can continue the discussion.
Jer
Jer
March 11, 2008 - 22:17 ET by MrShyI have not.
I will.
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
MrShy...I really came
March 11, 2008 - 22:38 ET by JerMrShy...I really came across as pushy and prosecutorial in that post.
I'm sorry.
Jer
So what's the end game? It's
March 11, 2008 - 22:31 ET by balboaSo what's the end game? It's been pointed out that Dems don't get noted as Dems and Repubs do. So what's next?
Bal
March 11, 2008 - 22:47 ET by RESTLESS 1There is no "end game". It is perpetual. I believe that this is so blatant as to not possibly be coincidence. The media want scandals to be percieved as a Republican phenomenon, therefore the party is affixed to articles about their indiscretions, and not so much for the dems. It creates an impression in the minds as those not as astute as you or I.
See, I don't agree that the
March 11, 2008 - 23:09 ET by balboaSee, I don't agree that the MSM _want_ scandals perceived as only Republican. I think that when a Republican commits an indiscretion, the first thing that occurs to them is that Republicans hold themselves as the party of ethics, family values, so stating the party is key.
When a Democrat does it, that's not the first thing that occurs to them.
Is that right? Nope. But until more conservatives are in the media, it might just continue.
I'm not buying it, bal.
March 11, 2008 - 22:57 ET by JerI'm not buying it, bal. The NYT has led the reporting on Spizer and consistently idenitfied him as a Democrat--except for a couple of articles. I keep waiting for one of those latter ones to be posted here as an example of a sprawling anti-Republican conspiracy. I have seen such cherry-picking happen more than once on the NB blogs.
The Spitzer coverage has been enormous, and, unless you live in a cave, his politial affiliation should be clear to anyone. Chris Matthews on MSNBC was slamming him last night. HuffingtonPost bloggers have been blasting Spitzer. The AP reports prominently mentioned his party ID. The notion that this story has been evidence of media bias is absurd.
Jer
Personally I don't think
March 11, 2008 - 23:17 ET by balboaPersonally I don't think it's important to mention the party after the story has broken initially.
Don't you think
March 12, 2008 - 06:29 ET by sarcasmoA style convention like I and various others have suggested would disarm all these conservative complaints? I keep saying this, but a "(D. NY)" in paragraph 1 just doesn't take up that much space, "journalistic" effort, or ink. Personally, I know we're political geeks enough that Spitzer's party didn't need to be mentioned ONCE, so this is one of those uncomfortable conversations about how the media effects others who are less politically aware.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
So why not do what I suggested above
March 12, 2008 - 06:21 ET by sarcasmoAnd put a "(D. NY)" in the beginning of the story. That's literally all NB wants, Jer. It's not that much to ask, since we all know they'd have identified the other party right away. Why not take the bias and appearance-of-bias out of the picture?? We both know that if this story had featured a "(D. NY)" right up front, nobody'd be complaining about bias right now, and you'd not be trying to defend it with things like "taken as a whole." Taken as a whole, journalism suffers from a massive appearance of bias that could be solved by doing what I suggested, ie their jobs. And even if you don't think it constitutes bias, you're going to have trouble convincing me (let alone others) that this kind of missing party label is "random." Too much proof to the contrary already exists in the form of things like screen captures from previous Republican scandals. Give up defending the bias. What's needed is a style convention drummed into their little minds in Journalism 101.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc...I would have no
March 12, 2008 - 06:59 ET by Jersarc...I would have no problem with a lead paragraph (D) or (R) beside the name of every politician ever mentioned in a news article or the subject of a cable or network broadcast. But, I honestly don't believe it would satisfy NewsBusters. They have often complained, for example, that a mere screen graphic is inadequate.
The referenced USA Today story contains many more references than just the cited examples which make it abundantly clear that Spitzer is a Democrat. And I think you saw my other posts where I noted that CNN, CBS, MSNBC, AP, HuffingtonPost, USA Today, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and many other sources have made it clear that Spitzer is a Democrat. Yet if you believe the multiple blogs on NB, you would think his party identity is being completely buried. It's nonsense.
Gotta go to the school bus stop. More later.
Jer
It might not satisfy NB
March 12, 2008 - 07:03 ET by sarcasmoBut it would put me on your side instead of theirs. Even if you're right about actual bias, you can't deny that NB has made a good case for the overall appearance of bias, if only by repeating the issue so often because it happens so often, can you? A style convention would take away major conservative media bias rhetorical ammo, while at the same time (see very first comment) better informing readers. What's not to like?
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
sarc...
March 12, 2008 - 08:08 ET by JerI like it...I like it. But unless, and until that happens, I will continue to push against the tide in those cases where I think the evidence is weak, unpersuasive, or nonexistent.
And I often find cited cases to be random, anecdotal, inconclusive and highly exaggerated. Because the issue has become somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, I have begun to dig behind the scenes of the endless stream of putative examples of media bias. What I have found on several occasions--and I have alluded to this before--is that although a particular article may for some reason omit the party affiliation of the person in question, a search of related articles concerning the same subject from the same news source reveals that his or her identity was provided in all other--or at least the majority of other--news pieces. However, the only one, or one of the few, that didn't [disclose the party ID] will be cherry-picked and posted on an NB blog as yet further evidence of the "media conspiracy" to protect Democrats. I don't think the oversight is intentional--just a case of excessive zeal and insufficient homework.
At some point, it may be that I'll be proven wrong and naive. If I have to eat my words, I'll swallow them whole. But the "proof" so far may be impressive in quantity, but the quality is questionable.
Jer
That's why I keep proposing
March 12, 2008 - 08:24 ET by sarcasmoA multi-entity cooperative study of the media by groups with various political outlooks rather than just NB. So far, the answer is "no." But a simple style convention would solve the problem, and I still say it's unforgivable for journalists to let themselves APPEAR this biased even if you are right.
JMR
PS Howard Stern has spent the past hour or so talking to a pimp Elliot sent to the slammer for a couple of years a few years ago.
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
There is nothing covered,
March 12, 2008 - 02:42 ET by FairlightThere is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.