Compare this to the Mark Foley coverage.
You don't have to read the article, just look for the magic word (I've subtly highlighted it).
This is from the objective Associated Press
----------------------------------------

S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation

By CHET BROKAW
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 24, 2007; 11:33 PM

PIERRE, S.D. -- A state senator accused of groping a legislative page testified Wednesday that the 18-year-old was like a relative, that he saw nothing wrong with sharing a motel bed with him and that the teenager fabricated his accusation.

The Senate has accused Sen. Dan Sutton of sexual misconduct last February with the page. Sutton was questioned Wednesday before a Senate special committee investigating the accusation.

Asked whether he thought it was appropriate to climb into bed with Austin Wiese, Sutton responded that the page "was like a nephew or a son to me and my wife. I had no concern."

And that's where it ended, Sutton said.

"I didn't do anything," he said twice.

While it is The Associated Press' policy not to identify people who say they are the victims of sexual assault, Wiese's name was used in the Senate committee's public hearing, which was carried live on the Internet, and has been circulated by other media in the state.

Wiese, now 19, was not present for Sutton's testimony.

Wiese told the Senate committee on Tuesday that Sutton touched his genitals on the motel bed. The alleged incident took place as Wiese was starting a stint as a page for the 2006 Legislature.

Sutton said Wiese made it up _ possibly because of his father's political ambitions or a failed business venture. Wiese's father, Dennis Wiese, lost the Democratic nomination for governor last year.

A woman who answered the telephone at Dennis Wiese's home Wednesday night said that he was not there and that she did not know how to reach him.

Sutton testified that his family and Wiese's family had been friends for years. He said that after talking with Wiese's parents, he told Austin Wiese he could stay with him in his motel room, where there was a bed and a sofa bed.

On Feb. 5, the two watched the Super Bowl and worked out, and Wiese climbed into the bed, Sutton testified. Sutton said he did not pull out the sofa bed because Wiese already was asleep.

Sutton, a Democrat from Flandreau, could be censured, disciplined or expelled when the full Senate votes. The vote is expected Jan. 31.

Nice article. What point are you trying to make?

You really can't figure it out? Too subtle?

See paragraph 13. Not paragraph 1, 2 or 3.

You really can't figure it out? Too subtle?

I can figure out a lot of things that I find odd about the article, but not being a psychic I don't know for certain what point you were trying to make here.


See paragraph 13. Not paragraph 1, 2 or 3.

Since you seem intent on making this a guessing game, I'm guessing you think the fact that the senator in question is a Democrat should have been mentioned earlier in the article.

You really can't figure it out? Too subtle?

See paragraph 13. Not paragraph 1, 2 or 3.
i can understand your opinion, but i don't quite share it. this is a local story, and this State Senator doesn't have the long history Foley did of these shenanigans.

Here's another article about the Senator:


Committee Votes To Reprimand Sutton

Democrat Senator Dan Sutton will likely keep his job as a senator after being accused of sexual misconduct with an 18-year old legislative page...(more)

http://www.keloland.com/News/NewsDetail6375.cfm?Id=0,54205

And another:


Panel votes to recommend Sutton censure
By AP and staff reports

A state Senate panel voted 6 to 3 Friday to recommend that the full chamber censure a senator accused of sexually groping a male legislative page last February.

The panel could have alternatively decided to discipline, expel or exonerate Dan Sutton, D-Flandreau.....

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/26/news/top/news01%20sutton%20vote.txt

And yet one more:


South Dakota Senate investigates one of its own
by Cara Hetland, Minnesota Public Radio
January 24, 2007

Members of the South Dakota Senate heard from four witnesses in the first day of an unusual legislative hearing. A select committee is hearing testimony into alleged sexual misconduct by Sen. Dan Sutton. Sutton, a Democrat who represents Flandreau,...

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/01/22/suttonsdhearing/

Those were all on the first page of a Google News search for "Senator Dan Sutton"...it took me just five minutes to find those. How long did you have to look to find your article?

i can understand your opinion, but i don't quite share it. this is a local story, and this State Senator doesn't have the long history Foley did of these shenanigans.

I'd have to agree - it's a state senator, not a federal officeholder. And he's not from a particularly populous state either.

Here's another article about the Senator:
And another:
And yet one more:
How long did you have to look to find your article?
Lionel: "I'd have to agree - it's a state senator,"
Yes, it's a state senator, but it's an AP story.
I had a discussion with Dharma a couple weeks back about the bias of AP. AP refers to Foley as "Foley (R)" or "Republican Mark Foley". It's the writing you'll find in most articles dealing with politics.

I'm glad NPR and local papers were consistent in this case and wrote in the style that's usually seen in this type of writing, but AP is a big wire service that sets the tone for many stories and is expected to be more consistent than this.

Yes, it's a state senator, but it's an AP story.
I had a discussion with Dharma a couple weeks back about the bias of AP. AP refers to Foley as "Foley (R)" or "Republican Mark Foley".Heck, during the fall election they even called him Rep. Mark Foley D-Florida.

http://cbs4denver.com/politics/local_story_277095135.html

That's fine Brooks, but I'd also like to point out that you are assuming that Chet Brokaw, the AP reporter in question, put the fact that Sutton was a Democrat at the end of his story because he wanted to bury that fact. Is it not possible that Mr. Sutton just didn't think it was all that relevant to the story? Personally, when a politician engages in this type of behavior, I don't care what party he belongs to.

After what we saw take place with the Lewinski nonsense, as it regards politicians and sex scandals, how ANY rightwing twit on this entire planet can possess the unmitigated fucking nerve to go around whining about "sex scandal and Media bias" is beyond my comprehension.

well hey it turned out that all of the people who so unfairly criticized and charged Clinton were right after all...

A prez cheating on his wife is big news, especially in today's ultra-dramatic, reality TV society.. which i happen to heavily dislike.

Personally, when a politician engages in this type of behavior, I don't care what party he belongs to.
Then there's a vas defrens between you and the media, the Democrats and the entire country during the Foley scandal.
His political party was the story.

well hey it turned out that all of the people who so unfairly criticized and charged Clinton were right after all...

A prez cheating on his wife is big news........

Bullshit.

George H. W. Bush cheated on his wife for years. It was WELL known throughout Washington political circles and journalistic circles. Her name was Jennifer Fitzgerald.

Do you recall there being any witch hunt being carried out in an attempt to bring him down over the philandering he was doing?

No.

Do you recall the mainstream Media making a huge, front-page issue over it?

No.

Many, many presidents have gone 'off the ranch' hunting a stray a time or two.

A pres getting a little strange on the side is only "big news" if some group of despicable, thuggish political operatives decides to use it as a wedge to inflame public sentiment against a politician and try to oust him from office.

George H. W. Bush cheated on his wife for years. It was WELL known throughout Washington political circles and journalistic circles. Her name was Jennifer Fitzgerald.

Do you recall there being any witch hunt being carried out...The Jennifer Fitzgerald story is more fairly compared to the Gennifer Flowers story. Both were paramours not involved in any lying under oath scandal.

The reason Gennifer Flowers became such a big story is because SHE came forward with phone recordings of Bill Clinton talking about sex and an odd anti-italian prejudice.

But the Lewinsky / Fitzgerald comparison is just not there.

PS - The Gennifer Flowers story didn't hurt him.

Heck, during the fall election they even called him Rep. Mark Foley D-Florida.It happens all the time.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/queun/cnn_sr_steele_labeled_dem1.jpg

It happens all the time.You asked us to compare this AP story with how they covered Mark Foley. So I did, and found they had mistakenly labeled him a Democrat. Sorry if this answer isn't what you were looking for and gives the lie to your entire premise, but what the hell. And as I told you the last time you posted the Steele thing, calling him a Democrat in the last election probably did him more good than harm, while calling Foley (perhaps the most reviled man in America at the time) a Democrat reflected poorly on the wrong party as a whole.

But the Lewinsky / Fitzgerald comparison is just not there.


I couldn't agree more.

While BOTH involved a president having sex with a woman other than his wife, there was NO witch hunt and NO concerted attempt to expose what the president did when it was George H W Bush doing it.

The mainstream Media treated the two affairs in totally different ways. They completely ignored it when it was Bush41, they maniacally focused on it when it was Clinton.

If Clinton would have fessed up right away, and didn't wag and point his finger to the ENTIRE nation that he didn't do it.. it probably would have gone away alot sooner.

the entire reason there WAS a "witchhunt" is because the republicans wanted to prove he LIED, not that he had sex.

the entire reason there WAS a "witchhunt" is because the republicans wanted to prove he LIED, not that he had sex.So Clinton lied and then there was a witch hunt?

That's pretty funny, Decka. I have no doubt you actually believe it happened that way.

The Jennifer Fitzgerald story is more fairly compared to the Gennifer Flowers story. Both were paramours not involved in any lying under oath scandal.
I was reading this debate and had to point one thing out -

You're mixing up the legal issue with what the media zeroed in on. The legal issue was the lying under oath part. The media didn't care about that. They cared about the blowjob.

If Clinton would have fessed up right away, and didn't wag and point his finger to the ENTIRE nation that he didn't do it.. it probably would have gone away alot sooner.

the entire reason there WAS a "witchhunt" is because the republicans wanted to prove he LIED, not that he had sex.

You think this would have been anywhere near as large if it was just about a lie?

Want me to count how many times Bush has lied? It'd take me awhile.

Sorry if this answer isn't what you were looking for and gives the lie to your entire premise,How so?

While BOTH involved a president having sex with a woman other than his wife, Had Jennifer Fitzgerald saved a scummy dress, had Vernon Jordan tried to get her a "shut up" job, had she been given access to the white house in the evenings and had Barbara Bush accused a "vast left-wing conspiracy" of making it up...... there would be a valid comparison.

But since none of the above is so, there just isn't a comparison.

The mainstream Media treated the two affairs in totally different ways. Mainly because the circumstances were "totally different".

The legal issue.... The media didn't care about that. They cared about the blowjob.The bj was material to lying under oath, his making an obvious false statement to the american public, and his wife coining a phrase to accuse other people of making it up..
There's no way to tell how far the story would have gone without these other factors.

The bj was material to lying under oath, his making an obvious false statement to the american public, and his wife coining a phrase to accuse other people of making it up..
There's no way to tell how far the story would have gone without these other factors.

I agree 100%. Either of those two factors alone would have meant nothing. Many presidents have lied and nothing came of it, and many, many, many presidents have had affairs and nothing came of it. I still believe that the media cared much more about the bj than the lying part though. It simply makes for a better headline.

I'd have to agree - it's a state senator, not a federal officeholder. And he's not from a particularly populous state either.

What in hell does the population of the state have to do with sexual predation, Lionel, or the fact that he is a state senator rather than a federal senator for that matter?

Foley sent some inappropriate emails. This guy was in a motel room, in the same bed and grabbed the kids genitals and you seem to be sloughing if off as a mere nothing.

That's fine Brooks, but I'd also like to point out that you are assuming that Chet Brokaw, the AP reporter in question, put the fact that Sutton was a Democrat at the end of his story because he wanted to bury that fact. Is it not possible that Mr. Sutton just didn't think it was all that relevant to the story? Personally, when a politician engages in this type of behavior, I don't care what party he belongs to.

Vile, Sutton being a Democrat is no more and no less relevant to the story as the fact that Foley was a Republican. Brooks raised a valid concern. The MSM is much more likely to identify a malefactor as a Republican than a Democrat.

What in hell does the population of the state have to do with sexual predation, Lionel, or the fact that he is a state senator rather than a federal senator for that matter?

You know the answer already Frogger. The more important the person, the bigger the news if they screw up. The more people in his/her state, the more important they are.

How so?I believe (and I'm only saying I believe because you wont come out and say what your premise really is) that you are saying the AP gives preferential treatment to Democrats. You offer this article as proof. I produced an article that shows the opposite. Therefore, your point (or lack thereof) is not made.

You think this would have been anywhere near as large if it was just about a lie?

Want me to count how many times Bush has lied? It'd take me awhile.

I guess you misunderstood me... i'm not saying "all lies are equal"...

I'm saying that if Clinton didn't say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".. but yet Monica kept saying he did, or there was evidence that he did.. it would not have been as big. This wasn't about mainly whether or not he got a bj, this was about did the president go on TV and lie to the entire nation, straight forward.

You can talk about Bush all you want, many of the "lies" people want to pin on him are based on assumptions, but I've seen a few instances where Bush has indeed lied... pretty much like any politician does these days, which is damn sad if you ask me.

What in hell does the population of the state have to do with sexual predation, Lionel, or the fact that he is a state senator rather than a federal senator for that matter?

Foley sent some inappropriate emails. This guy was in a motel room, in the same bed and grabbed the kids genitals and you seem to be sloughing if off as a mere nothing.

I'm not commenting on the punishment, I'm pointing out why the article isn't getting the same level of press as the Foley scandal, which is what the thread is about. Although I think Brooks has a good point that in these sort of stories the political party the scuzbag belongs to should get equal play.

Vile, Sutton being a Democrat is no more and no less relevant to the story as the fact that Foley was a Republican.

I agree. Both are irrelevant.


Brooks raised a valid concern. The MSM is much more likely to identify a malefactor as a Republican than a Democrat.

Brooks' concern is valid. If he was attempting to say he thought the word "democrat" should have appeared earlier in this one article, I can accept that. If your point, and his, is to say that this is endemic in the press, I disagree, and I posted three links to back up my disagreement. It's one article.

It simply makes for a better headline.
I agree with you on that. The simpler a story is to understand, the more coverage it receives.

....you are saying the AP gives preferential treatment to Democrats. You offer this article as proof. I produced an article that shows the opposite. Therefore, your point (or lack thereof) is not made.
There is no comparison between a, possibly accidental, TV photo caption mistake and an AP story.

The comparison should be between AP stories on Foley and on Sutton.

When you put "Mark Foley" AP into Google, the stories come up with these first paragraphs:

"WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - As Congress continued to feel the fallout from Rep. Mark Foley's resignation over a scandal with male pages, Foley's lawyer announced Tuesday that the Florida Republican had been molested by a clergyman as a teenager and that he was under the influence of alcohol when he sent lurid messages to congressional pages."

"In a scandal guaranteed to anger parents, a prominent House Republican has resigned after the revelation that he exchanged raunchy electronic messages with a teenage boy, a former congressional page."

"WASHINGTON Sep 30, 2006 (AP)— Rep. Thomas Reynolds, head of the House Republican election effort, said Saturday he told Speaker Dennis Hastert months ago about concerns that a fellow GOP lawmaker had sent inappropriate messages to a teenage boy. Hastert's office said aides referred the matter to the proper authorities last fall but they were only told the messages were "over-friendly."

"WASHINGTON — In a scandal guaranteed to anger parents, a prominent House Republican has resigned after the revelation that he exchanged raunchy electronic messages with a teenage boy, a former congressional page." (This one appeared on the Fox News website)

"Mark Foley, a six-term Republican from Florida who had been heading for re-election, resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives Sept. 29 after revelations of sexually explicit electronic messages he sent to a teenager and former House page."

******************

NOTE: These are all AP stories. The only AP stories that didn't have Foley's party in the first paragraph were stories about other Republicans covering the story up.

There are plenty more, but I think you get the point.

If your point, and his, is to say that this is endemic in the press, I disagree, and I posted three links to back up my disagreement. It's one article.Your comparison is of local papers to AP. Compare AP to AP.

Your comparison is of local papers to AP. Compare AP to AP.

I doubt a valid comparison can be made on that basis because of the number of different AP writers assigned to the two stories. The problem is that the "local" story will probably only have the story by the one writer. Is it possible he's biased? Sure, but that doesn't mean the entire organization is biased. I made the comparison because your thread title refers to "Media Bias" not "AP bias".

1. I doubt a valid comparison can be made on that basis because of the number of different AP writers assigned to the two stories.
2. I made the comparison because your thread title refers to "Media Bias" not "AP bias".1. The stories must pass the same style / editorial tests established by the culture of the particular news organization.

2. You found the local exceptions. Find the AP comparisons that I found with the parties reversed, from AP or any other news organization.

but I've seen a few instances where Bush has indeed lied...

Well, at least you can admit that he has lied.

But I expect that you will say that they were all lies you don't care about or consider unimportant. (which is also how many people feel about Clinton's lie about an affair.)

But of course, Fox News' outrageous bias doesn't bother you one bit.

Only supposedly "liberal" bias' are bad.

But you also think the fairness doctrine is a bad idea...

*sigh*

There is just no pleasing some people.

There is no comparison between a, possibly accidental, TV photo caption mistake and an AP story.That was not the comparison I was making. The link I provided was to an AP story that identified Foley as a Democrat. I was comparing an AP story to an AP story. At the beginning of this thread you asked us to compare your AP story with how the AP covered Foley. That's exactly what I did. I made absolutely no mention of the FOX incident (but thanks for reminding me).

I guess you misunderstood me... i'm not saying "all lies are equal"...

I'm saying that if Clinton didn't say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".. but yet Monica kept saying he did, or there was evidence that he did.. it would not have been as big. This wasn't about mainly whether or not he got a bj, this was about did the president go on TV and lie to the entire nation, straight forward.

I agree with the first part. The media had their hayday with the fact that it was a BJ that Clinton lied about, not the fact that he lied.

You can talk about Bush all you want, many of the "lies" people want to pin on him are based on assumptions, but I've seen a few instances where Bush has indeed lied... pretty much like any politician does these days, which is damn sad if you ask me.
Iraq being responsible for 9-11 and him having proof that Iraq had WMD for starters.

I dont think Bush ever said "Iraq was responsible for 9-11".. he might have said there was a connection, which hasn't been proven. As for the WMD, hindsight is 20-20, you can't prove he "lied".. what if he DID have intelligence that suggested WMD's, and it just happened to be bad intel? I don't think anyone ever entertains that thought

As for the WMD, hindsight is 20-20, you can't prove he "lied"..
FT will jump on this, buckle your seatbelt everybody.

he can "jump" all he wants.. he presents the same thing everytime.. a bunch of indirect evidence.. stuff that HINTS or MIGHT lead you to a conclusion.. but it's not fact, even if the bias in his brain wants to think it is.

The lie I was talking about was when he said he had proof, when he actually didn't.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/R/M/monica_evidence.gif

The link I provided was to an AP story that identified Foley as a Democrat. I was comparing an AP story to an AP story. IF AP did this on purpose, and IF you are saying their intention was to help Foley by doing such, then you have an example of AP's notorious right wing bias.
Are you saying yes to both of these?

My comparison was AP intentionally placing Foley's party in the first paragraph and AP intentionally placing Sutton's party in the thirteenth paragraph.

Just a thought here, Brooks. Do you have a link for the article you originally posted? I was looking at some other articles written by Mr. Brokaw and came across a discrepancy. Compare the first paragraphs of each of these from January 11:

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/11/news/south_dakota/68a2a99844ee64608625726000112659.txt

http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/10/news/top/news00m%20sutton%20goes%20to%20court.txt

This might be a case of individual newspapers editing content rather than evidence of some pervasive bias on the part of AP. Of course, there's no way to tell if the party affiliation was added by one or subtracted by the other. Whichever, I still think it's pretty weak to read one article by a reporter stuck out in the hinterlands and infer from that a vast left-wing media conspiracy.

Maybe if the periodical alters the text they still credit AP but not the writer.
I don't know.

I found the article by Googling AP and Sutton.