Study: Networks Always Label GOPers With Sex Scandals

NewsBusters ^ | March 13, 2008 | Rich Noyes

[Marc Tumin]

My colleague Brent Baker has painstakingly documented how the big three broadcast networks have gone out of their way to avoid labeling scandal-scarred New York Governor Eliot Spitzer as a “Democrat.” An examination of the fifteen ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows through Wednesday night finds Spitzer was called a Democrat just 20% of the time — twice on CBS, once on ABC, and never on NBC.

So how do the networks treat Republicans involved in sex scandals? Always, always as Republicans, and as problems for their party.

Last July, Louisiana Senator David Vitter’s name surfaced in the phone records of the “DC Madam,” Deborah Jean Palfrey. Over the next week, ABC talked about Vitter twice on World News and twice on Good Morning America, labeling him as a “Republican” or “conservative Republican” all four times.

The CBS Early Show aired two Vitter stories, and both times called him a Republican. For some reason, the CBS Evening News did not report on Vitter that week. NBC’s Today mentioned Vitter on two different mornings, and called him a Republican both times. The NBC Nightly News reported on Vitter once, and called him a Republican.

ABC’s Jake Tapper began his story on July 10 with Vitter’s party ID: “REPUBLICAN Senator David Vitter is a self-proclaimed defender of family values....” On July 16, NBC’s Brian Williams also stressed Vitter’s conservative credentials: “Now we move to Louisiana, where REPUBLICAN Senator David Vitter made his first public appearance tonight in a week. He went underground after being caught up in what is become known as the DC madam sex scandal. Vitter is one of the Senate's most conservative members.”

As for Craig, the bathroom sex sting was a much bigger story, and unfolded on a schedule uncannily similar to Spitzer’s. The news broke on a Monday afternoon, and was mentioned on Monday’s evening newscasts. Over the next two days, every morning and evening show featured at least one story on Craig — and every one of these broadcasts labeled him a “Republican.”

Here’s Katie Couric opening the August 28 Evening News: “The story exploded on front pages all over America today: another member of Congress caught up in a scandal, a sex scandal. REPUBLICAN Senator Larry Craig caught in a police sting at the Minneapolis airport....”

On ABC’s Good Morning America that same day, Claire Shipman saw the whole GOP “rocked” by Craig’s immorality: “We begin with the latest scandal to rock the REPUBLICAN Party. Idaho Senator Larry Craig is denying any wrongdoing after getting arrested on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport men’s room earlier this month....”

Over on NBC, Matt Lauer began the Today show: “Good morning. Politician in peril. Idaho Senator Larry Craig, an opponent of gay rights, admits pleading guilty to disorderly conduct after a police officer accused him of soliciting sex in an airport men’s room. Can the right wing withstand yet another scandal involving one of its own?...On Monday word leaked out that the conservative REPUBLICAN was arrested and pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct...”

The list of examples goes on, but the bottom line is that in the early days of their scandals, Vitter and Craig were labeled as Republicans on every broadcast news program — 100% — that mentioned their wrongdoing. For Democrat Spitzer, four out of five news programs (80%) have skipped his label. On NBC’s Today and Nightly News through Wednesday night, reporters never once acknowledged that Spitzer was a Democrat.

The media’s message: Republicans enmeshed in personal scandal are a moral stain on their entire party; Democrats in similar circumstances are just individuals, not “Democrats” — and certainly not representatives of the liberal cause.

Copyright © 2005-2008 NewsBusters.

[Pablo64]

To those of us paying attention, this is really not news. But they will deny their bias to the bitter end.

[Diogenesis]

[Jacquerie]

It took weeks for The Dan to report the Gary Condit (Rat-CA) scandal. When he did, Condit was described as “conservative” (he wasn't) and never mentioned his democrat party membership.

[gondramB]

While this is a good idea for a study its not well developed yet nor does it have controls.

For example take “Larry Craig” searches of the google news archives.

“Larry Craig” - 18900
“Larry Craig” Republican - 8670

“Larry Craig” sex - 2790
“Larry Craig” sex republican - 1910

So in all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years of news the word “republican” was mentioned 46%

But in stories where sex was also mention (and thus was likely to be a scandal story) “republican was mentioned 68% of the time.

Then you’d need to repeat this with various sex scandals from both parties. I don’t doubt there will be a difference but the articles implies its 20% vs 100% and that does not appear to be true.

Spitzer - 138000
Spitzer democrat 7850

spitzer sex 3630
spitzer sex democrat 390

Spitzer went from 6% to 11%

[ronnie raygun]

We sit here and act surprised when the liberal drive-by media plays thier silly child like games day in and day out. reader ship is down, audience viewing is down, they can’t even put together a radio show that can stand on it’s own. They need the fairness doctrine to force the government to make the playing field equal cause johnny isn’t playing nice. Let’s keep it up, stop viewing, stop buying, stop listening( if they ever get another shot at a radio station) there are cracks in the china!

[stylin19a]

Somebody finally reading FR...
Once again...FR on the leading edge

[ReignOfError]

Spitzer is standing on the right, hence the (R). He is identified as a Democrat in the caption.

[ReignOfError]

So in all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years of news

If you really believe that Google News contains "all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years," then there's really no point in trying to take the rest of your analysis seriously.

[gondramB]

>>So in all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years of news
-
If you really believe that Google News contains “all Larry Craig mentions over the last 20 years,” then there’s really no point in trying to take the rest of your analysis seriously.<<

1. My main point was that a more systematic approach is needed than the author’s. his anecdotes don’t have a lot of value.

2. I used the Google news archive as the handy compilation of MSM news that on the net free. A comprehensive study would examine examine how good a data base that is.

But doesn’t Google news cover exactly the kinds of sources the author accuses of bias and so isn’t that a good place to start?

[Republican Red]

Spitzer is standing on the right, hence the (R).

I'm glad they told me which one in the picture was ELIOT otherwise I might have thought the lady standing to his L might be ELIOT

[princess leah]

Google and yahoo and aol are all liberal media outlets. Just take a poll on any of their websites and you’ll see it!

[Republican Red]

During the Gary Condit drama, I remember the media used to only use the tag Gard Conit, (Rep) as in Representative. While technically correct, Condit was a Representative, I firmly believe it was done to infer republican. I have never seen Mark Foley described any other way except "R" and he was a Representative too.

[BookaT]

Most states this type of conviction makes you a “Sex Offender” and he will probably have to register himself where ever he ends up. Hopefully after jail time.

[ReignOfError]

1. My main point was that a more systematic approach is needed than the author’s. his anecdotes don’t have a lot of value.

i agree wholeheartedly.

2. I used the Google news archive as the handy compilation of MSM news that on the net free. [...] But doesn’t Google news cover exactly the kinds of sources the author accuses of bias and so isn’t that a good place to start?

Afraid not. The claim made at NewsBusters is about mentions on television, and the Big Three don't put their transcripts online for free. You'd need something like Nexis or a subscription to the individual networks' transcripts. Without spending a bunch of money, I have no way to investigate NB's claims.

Searching Web stories from the same news sources is not comparable. They are written like print stories, to stand for a long time, where television stories -- anchor introductions even more so -- are ephemeral.

The Republican counter-examples are from six and eight months ago, even more difficult to follow up.

I'll also point out that the analysis did not include any print sources, which are far easier to verify; nor does it include CNN, which posts rough transcripts online for free.

[gondramB]

You’ve got several good points there.

[ReignOfError]

One more thing — and I think we’re largely in agreement, so I’m not piling on — the methodology of using “sex” as a search term is a bit flawed. A lot of news stories would lead with “prostitution scandal” or “public restroom indecency charges” because they’re much more interesting phrases in a time when people have gotten pretty jaded about “sex scandals.”

[gondramB]

>>One more thing — and I think we’re largely in agreement, so I’m not piling on — the methodology of using “sex” as a search term is a bit flawed. A lot of news stories would lead with “prostitution scandal” or “public restroom indecency charges” because they’re much more interesting phrases in a time when people have gotten pretty jaded about “sex scandals.”<<

I actually tested several key words, scandal, restroom, prostitution etc. I picked sex since it worked for both Craig and Spitzer but I absolutely agree the key word would need to go beyond “sex” for a good analysis.

[ReignOfError]

I'm glad they told me which one in the picture was ELIOT otherwise I might have thought the lady standing to his L might be ELIOT

1) AFP is a French press agency. Outside the US, Eliot and Silda might not be so obvious.

2) Wire service photo captions are not intended for the general public. Their audience is for editors; they include far more information than anyone is likely to need, so that editors can pick and choose which information their readers need in the contest of their story.

For example, an AP caption might read something like "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, addresses a crowd at a campaign rally at the IBEW hall in Latrobe, Pennsylvania Thursday, March 13, 2008. Pennsylvania's April 22 primary is the next milestone in a hotly contested race for the Democratic presidential nomination."

The published caption is more likely to be something like "Obama addresses a campaign rally in Pennsylvania Thursday."

[Contra]

When there is a lack of description then you know it is a Democrat, just like when a suspect in a crime isn’t mentioned it’s a black guy (although nowadays, it could also be a hispanic or middle eastern type). And they also sometimes refer to middle eastern/arab/muslim types as asian.