MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Pakuni on June 04, 2007, 12:29:18 PM
-
Look at that ... bright red banner at the top of the page along with a "BREAKING NEWS" header. Why not just bury it in the weather report? ;)
http://www.cnn.com/
-
Look at that ... bright red banner at the top of the page along with a "BREAKING NEWS" header. Why not just bury it in the weather report? ;)
http://www.cnn.com/
Pretty funny.....we'll see at the end of two weeks how many stories are written on this vs a Republican member indicted. Want to take bets? Want to guess which will get much more play? Do you really want to go there?
-
Look at that ... bright red banner at the top of the page along with a "BREAKING NEWS" header. Why not just bury it in the weather report? ;)
http://www.cnn.com/
Pretty funny.....we'll see at the end of two weeks how many stories are written on this vs a Republican member indicted. Want to take bets? Want to guess which will get much more play? Do you really want to go there?
Ummm ... OK. Which Republican member? And who will do the counting? And does the story have to be about Jefferson's case, or merely mention his name? And which news outlets count and which don't? And how does one define 'play'?
If you're going to offer a bet, at least define some terms so I can understand what you're talking about.
-
The Media Research Center tracks all of these stories. Even Google can do it for you on a macro level.
Let's compare it to GOP member down in San Diego from 2 years ago.
The bigger question I have is whether Nancy will ask Mr. Jefferson to resign.....crickets chirping.
(http://tinypic.com/11alte8.jpg)
-
The Media Research Center tracks all of these stories. Even Google can do it for you on a macro level.
Let's compare it to GOP member down in San Diego from 2 years ago.
The bigger question I have is whether Nancy will ask Mr. Jefferson to resign.....crickets chirping.
The Media Research Center? The same MRC that calls itself the "Leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias"? Now that sounds like an objective source. Certainly they wouldn't have any reason to skew the numbers one way or another.
Jefferson to Cunningham is a bad comparison. Jefferson is accused of accepting bribes in order to help a company sell radios, mostly in Africa. Cunningham repeatedly sold out his office at the expense of American troops at war. Not exactly analogous situations.
-
The Media Research Center tracks all of these stories. Even Google can do it for you on a macro level.
Let's compare it to GOP member down in San Diego from 2 years ago.
The bigger question I have is whether Nancy will ask Mr. Jefferson to resign.....crickets chirping.
The Media Research Center? The same MRC that calls itself the "Leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias"? Now that sounds like an objective source. Certainly they wouldn't have any reason to skew the numbers one way or another.
Jefferson to Cunningham is a bad comparison. Jefferson is accused of accepting bribes in order to help a company sell radios, mostly in Africa. Cunningham repeatedly sold out his office at the expense of American troops at war. Not exactly analogous situations.
Uhm, they both accepted bribes...end of story. And yes, the MRC is a conservative website, so what. The numbers are the numbers. Like I said, just do a topline google search then.
-
Uhm, they both accepted bribes...end of story. And yes, the MRC is a conservative website, so what. The numbers are the numbers. Like I said, just do a topline google search then.
1. So, then, context is irrelevant? That being the case, do you believe illiam Jefferson is the same as a meter maid who takes $5 on the sly to let someone out of a parking ticket? They both accepted bribes, right?
Better yet, is someone caught selling military secrets to Israel the same as someone caught selling military secrets to al Qaeda? After all, they both sold military secrets. End of story?
2. The numbers aren't just the numbers when you are relying on an unabashedly biased source for providing those numbers. Just as I suspect you wouldn't expect Move On to provide accurate figures (and rightly so), why should I or anyone else expect accuracy out of an advocacy group that admits partisanship?
-
Wouldn't the fact that we're NATO allies with Isreal and not exactly buddy-buddy with Iran affect the seriousness of giving away any type of secret?
-
If you think CNN's snub of the Jefferson indictment is bad----please understand that the New York Times put the plot to blow up JFK airport on page 37----that's right on page 37-----meanwhile every other paper in the NY area and the vast majority nationally had it on Page 1.
-
Wouldn't the fact that we're NATO allies with Isreal and not exactly buddy-buddy with Iran affect the seriousness of giving away any type of secret?
We're not NATO allies with Israel, but regardless I think you get my point. Context counts, which is the opposite of what Chico's seems to be arguing when stating that Jefferson's situation is identical, or at least very comparable, to that of Duke Cunningham.
I tend to believe that a guy who abuses his office to help sell radios in Africa is different than a guy who abuses his office to steer defense contracts to cronies in a time of war. Chico's argues they are the same.
Mind you, both are criminals deserving of imprisonment if convicted, but some criminals are worse than others.
Murff ... CNN didn't snub the Jefferson indictment. They gave it top billing. I used sarcasm (as is too often the case, I'm afraid) in my subject line.
-
No, I don't think the $5 strawman example you give is the same. We're talking about large sums of money in both cases...they both took bribes, they were both bought off for politican gain. That's the point. One will be played up much more than the other, there is absolutely no question about it which is why you are already in defense mode why one guy deserved more scrutiny then the other. We're not talking about $5 here. We're talking about major bribes in both cases. And let's please not be so naive to say it's about radios in West Africa. The guy is charged on 16 counts including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. $400,000 alone from Vernon Jackson who was convicted last year and in the pokey for 7 years trying to buy influence.
But since you think there are great differences in these cases then let's compare Duke Cunningham's transgressions to that of the United Nations and the bribes they took into the BILLIONS in Oil for Food. Yes, let's talk about that. Why did the liberal newspapers, especially the NY Times, pay such incredible lip service to that story? Giving it not nearly the MAJOR STORY worthiness it deserved. Afterall, it's the UNITED NATIONS we're talking about.
It wouldn't be because the left loves the UN so much and didn't want to damage it too much....nooooo, of course not. ::)
-
Uhm, they both accepted bribes...end of story. And yes, the MRC is a conservative website, so what. The numbers are the numbers. Like I said, just do a topline google search then.
2. The numbers aren't just the numbers when you are relying on an unabashedly biased source for providing those numbers. Just as I suspect you wouldn't expect Move On to provide accurate figures (and rightly so), why should I or anyone else expect accuracy out of an advocacy group that admits partisanship?
Pakuni...funny, you never say that about the NY Times...an UNABASHEDLY BIASED SOURCE. They're both news organizations, one is liberal and one is conservative. Are you saying the NY Times isn't biased and only the MRC is? Hmmm...now that would be interesting.
-
No, I don't think the $5 strawman example you give is the same. We're talking about large sums of money in both cases...they both took bribes, they were both bought off for politican gain. That's the point. One will be played up much more than the other, there is absolutely no question about it which is why you are already in defense mode why one guy deserved more scrutiny then the other. We're not talking about $5 here. We're talking about major bribes in both cases. And let's please not be so naive to say it's about radios in West Africa. The guy is charged on 16 counts including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. $400,000 alone from Vernon Jackson who was convicted last year and in the pokey for 7 years trying to buy influence.
But since you think there are great differences in these cases then let's compare Duke Cunningham's transgressions to that of the United Nations and the bribes they took into the BILLIONS in Oil for Food. Yes, let's talk about that. Why did the liberal newspapers, especially the NY Times, pay such incredible lip service to that story? Giving it not nearly the MAJOR STORY worthiness it deserved. Afterall, it's the UNITED NATIONS we're talking about.
It wouldn't be because the left loves the UN so much and didn't want to damage it too much....nooooo, of course not. ::)
1. For the love of God, please stop tossing around the term "straw man" incorrectly.
2. Why would I be in defense mode over William Jefferson? Now that's perilously close to an actual straw man.
3. Do you honestly believe the allegations against Jefferson, if true, are as serious as those against Cunningham? Can you honestly say that?
3. Read the indictment. It is about radios in Africa. Jefferson is accused of accepting bribes from a communications company in exchange for his influence to help open African markets to their products.
4. What does a scandal with no U.S. government involvement analogous to Duke Cunningham? Are you equaly outraged by the Times' lack of interest in Roh Moo-hyun's alleged violation of South Korean election law?
5. A Times archive search for "oil-for-food AND iraq" since 2000 turns up 479 results. "oil for food AND united nations" turns up 473 stories.
A similar search for "Randy Cunningham"? 170 mentions. "Duke Cunningham" comes up 21 times.
479 stories in 6.5 years (about six per month) hardly seems like lip service to me.
There goes that argument, anyhow.
-
clean house - corrupt republicans and dems need to be rooted out.
-
Who cares----both parties are comprised of human beings and therefore both parties are going to have their share of corrupt or over sexed participants.
To try to pin more sin on one party rather than the other is IMO irrelavant----as over the long run the "sin episodes" will equal out!
-
I thought the new "Google Trends" service would be cool to point out here. (news article hits on bottom part of graphs)
The history graph with Duke Cunningham:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=duke+cunningham
And now the one with William Jefferson (keep watching, as this story hasn't really hit the chart yet - sure to spike with > 4000 stories showing up on google news):
http://www.google.com/trends?q=william+jefferson
-
You can combine them on the same graph: http://www.google.com/trends?q=duke+cunningham%2C+william+jefferson&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
-
although a little wide of subject, I can't understand why scooter libby's crappy memory of months old events is jailable, while sandy berger's theft and destruction of classified documents isn't. ?
-
although a little wide of subject, I can't understand why scooter libby's crappy memory of months old events is jailable, while sandy berger's theft and destruction of classified documents isn't. ?
Because Sandy fessed up and pleaded guilty while Scooter lied to investigators and took his case to trial. Fair or not, the feds always come down hard on people who jerk them around. Just ask Martha Stewart.
On a side note, how is it that guys named Sandy and Scooter are running this country in the first place?
-
actually, Sandy lied about the theft until advised that there were surveillance tapes showing him stuffing the docs in his pants!
-
You can combine them on the same graph: http://www.google.com/trends?q=duke+cunningham%2C+william+jefferson&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
Ok, now we're OT, but thanks - I didn't know you could do that :)