Spot the Democrat

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

As some of you have likely heard -- the Bell city management in California is in an uproar:

The city manager was making $800,000 a year
The police chief was making $450,000 a year
The assistant city manager was making $376,288 a year

All three have resigned and an investigation is underway. 

Now, what's interesting about this is Ann Coultor feels that there is a conspiracy at play among the media for not
explicitly going out of its way to note that these individuals were Democrats.
 

Even more interesting is some commentors in the blogosphere feel that "Democrats  bestow ludicrous salaries on government employees, and, in return, public employee unions make sure the Democrats keep getting re-elected."


So, 1)  Would you guys have expected party affiliation to be mentioned in a local city government scandal?

2)  If there was a conspiracy at play, why would the papers run the story so freely instead of "burying it" as recent claims and accusations have made?

and 3) Do you guys feel this incident is "proof" of a larger trend in how one party or the other governs?


My personal feelings are: 
1)  No.  
2)  They wouldn't  - therefore there isn't a conspiracy   
3) No


Thoughts?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) No.

2) Everything's a conspiracy to modern Conservatives.

3) No. Both of them are equally corrupt Right-Wing Big Tent coalitions.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Thoughts? They're all going to collect obscene pensions and for some reason, this sort of injustice is never redressed.

Local government isn't the same thing as national parties and it's laughable to say that greed, megalomania and a willingness to defraud is limited to any part of the political spectrum. Small towns are notorious for this sort of thing, powerful cliques milking the locals.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

I would say yes to #1.

I realize that the party differentiation so archetypal of the national scene isn't always reflected at the local level... but nonetheless, media criticism being what it is, I would ALWAYS mention the party affiliation of any elected official in any scandal. Any line one drew between when to mention and when not to mention party affiliation would be too easily skewed by unconscious bias... and too ready a target of criticism even if not skewed by bias.


On 2 and 3 I agree.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I agree that it might be prudent, but I'm scanning google news and this story is at play in California...has it even wormed its way into anything above the fold elsewhere?

I'm kind of shocked that Coulter would dig so deep for a story fitting this meme -- we've got two senior Democrats in Congress making headlines for ethics investigations....has EVERY media outlet been scrupulous in identifying Rangel and Waters as Democrats?

[chemchick.livejournal.com]

You so know her Google alerts is set for "Democrat + corruption".

[chemchick.livejournal.com]

I think conspiracy is a fairly ludicrious word but I do find it a bit odd that the political affliation wasn't mentioned since even at the local level my newspaper tags a little D or R next to poiticians' names.

I don't think it's a conspiracy. That's just Ann Coultor screaming with a garden hose in her mouth again.

I do feel this is proof of a larger trend of how politics in general work. Corruption is not a new thing in the political realm. I find it disheartening that inherently greedy people seem to continutely be elected into local offices at the expense of the tax-payers. I'm glad an investigation is underway and I hope that if anything is found amiss that they are prosecuted.

[ygrii-blop.livejournal.com]

1) Yes. A couple of years ago there was a local government scandal ratch year in Dogpatch/Mayberry. The corrupt individual's party affiliation was made over in the local media.

2) No conspiracy, unless you define conspiracy as media, government, and corporations cooperating to perpetuate the hologram, as Joe Bageant calls it.

3) It's not proof of any kind. It's just another example of political corruption. Our history is thick with it.

[404.livejournal.com]

1) I don't see why not. They ran under that letter, after all.
2) Not sure who Ann Coultor but, I normally don't pay attention to pundits
3) It shows that when the public is not engaged and watching their elected officials, it seems that the public gets screwed.

[404.livejournal.com]

Can't edit, but you get what I mean: when the cat's away, the mice will play.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

I think this goes back to the JournOList or how all of the main stream media seems to adopt the exact same lexicon. Is it a conspiracy? I can't bring myself to care. I believe all news is bias. Is it worth noting, yes.

A few good examples of this:
George Bush added Dick Cheney and that gave him gravitas

Michelle Obama was right in taking a vacation to Spain but should the Obama's have considered the 'optics'

(There are YouTube videos of both examples of different media talking heads saying the same silly word over and over)

Gravitas and optics aren't commonly used words but all the media talking heads were using them. Why? I don't know. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy per se. I would call it a natural propensity to follow the leader.

The below article is an regarding is Senator Roland Burris but never mentions his party affiliation:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/20/senate-ethics-committee-clears-burris-of-legal-wrongdoing/


This is from NewsBusters (-gasp bias!!! evil right wing there I saved you time)
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was charged today with felonies that could cost him his job and 15 years in prison. ABC, CBS and NBC All Fail to ID Indicted Mayor as Democrat

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/24/abc-cbs-nbc-all-fail-id-indicted-mayor-democrat#comments


Mayor Robert Levy (phony soldier scandal)party affiliation was not mentioned in the MSNBC story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21206720/

If you are truly curious about this trend. It is documented on News Busters website.

To answer your questions
1) Would you guys have expected party affiliation to be mentioned in a local city government scandal?
When it's a Republican yes

2) If there was a conspiracy at play, why would the papers run the story so freely instead of "burying it" as recent claims and accusations have made?
If they didn't mention the stories at all, people would see their extreme bias. Better to report the news but omit the uncessary details.

3) Do you feel this incident is "proof" of a larger trend in how one party or the other governs?
I don't understand the context of the questiion in regards to the OP. I think it has very little to do with how both parties govern. It has more to do with the perception of the parties. I imagine that if you asked Jane Doe on the street which party was more corrupt, she'd say Republicans because the name 'Republican' is more often reported with scandals than 'Democrat' due to the small omisions.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

1) No, that's stupid, and not just because it's from something Ann Coulter implied
2) No, that's stupid, and not just because it's from something Ann Coulter implied
3) No, that's stupid, and not just because it's from something Ann Coulter implied

[xforge.livejournal.com]

It should be noted at this point that Fox News never seems to fail to put a (D) by the name of Republican legislators who are caught with their pants down and/or their hands in the cookie jar.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Never fails? Are there multiple examples of this?

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Mm, I was being a little hyperbolic. Still,
http://blog.buzzflash.com/honors/191
http://intershame.com/on/Fox_News/

FYI

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

In 300 stories on Bell, Calif. salary scandal, only one paper mentions party affiliation of city officials


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/in-300-stories-on-bell-calif-salary-scandal-only-one-paper-mentions-party-affiliation-of-city-officials-100565114.html#ixzz0wQkkMIcn

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

According to Wikipedia, Bell, California has a population of 36,664. I am from a town with about 80,000 and party affiliation is almost never mentioned in the local newspaper when discussing local candidates. The truth is that party affiliation doesn't matter as much at the local level because many of the things that divide the two major parties are not at stake or within the control of local officials.

[majortom-thecat.livejournal.com]

This is what I was going to say.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

Also, we are from the same small town! (Bellingham). Though I don't live there anymore.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

We also never mention it in NYC.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

1) Only if those in the scandal were conservatives.

2) I don't think they would in this case.

3) No.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

There's a conservative party?

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

1) Only if those in the scandal were conservatives.

Bingo.

I've been following this story and this is the first I've seen regarding their party affiliation. Personally it doesn't matter to me what party they ran under. Corrupt is corrupt. Wasn't surprised, though.

A few questions

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

1) Does the newspaper regularly point out the party affiliations of those below a certain threshold? AKA: is this abnormal for them or do they never point out the political affiliations of police officers, local administrators, etc?
2) Is Coulter equally surprised that no one's political affiliations are referenced in the article, including those who are possibly of equal government standing mentioned in the article?
3) Would Coulter care if they were Republican OH YES THE TABLES HAVE TURNED.

Ann Coulter is shocked!

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

If Ann Coulter believes it, it must be true.

[http://users.livejournal.com/aviation_/]

1. Yes. Not harped on, but mentioned, at least if they hold political office. Is police chief a political office? Since when do they have party affiliation anyway? IDK.
2. I don't think there is a conspiracy
3. No

[rogerdr.livejournal.com]

Chief of police is a political office because they are the head of enforcement of the local government's laws. If you mean whether their partisanship matters, it certainly does if it rises to the level of unequal enforcement. Having a chief assert a definite affiliation puts into question his desire to treat people equally.

[readherring.livejournal.com]

No, not applicable, and no.

I think that in cases of political corruption, sexual scandal, massive jaywalking fines, etc., the political affiliation SHOULD be downplayed. After all, these failures are attributable to individuals, not to Democrats, Republicans, Tories, the Christian Democratic Union, or the Sinyata Koalitsia. They are not attributable to party platforms or general party behavior.

If there was 'proof' that one party trended more towards corruption, then that would be a story. But I think all politicians have about the same capacity for sleaze.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Actually, local candidates do not have OFFICIAL party affiliations in large portions of So Cal. Of course everyone knows who is where. It's been 30 years since I've lived in L.A. but even in as large a city as that they don't pit party against party for city council or other offices.
In my city (138K) In the primaries the State offices are designated, and you have your ballot with party choices, but all ballots have all local races on them, from school board to mayor.
Since party affiliations are not mentioned, the school board races are usually the most fun :D

addendum

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Actually local office races are not usually on the primary ballot at all....This last primary we had a couple of local items, which skewed my memory, either that or I was having a senior moment.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

1.) A minor, everyday one? No. A major fucking unbelievable scandal like this? Only if they were Republican plutocrats screwing the working man.

2.) No conspiracy.

3.) No. Power corrupts, that aphorism works across party lines.

[rogerdr.livejournal.com]

they also have unlimited access to a 'discretionary fund' and can receive 'consulting fees' and the like

Ah, yes, the corruption comes in infinite variety. Truly, humans are amazing in our sneakiness.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

1) No
2) No conspiracy
3) There is better proof. I would say that exempting public employees and union members from taxes on cadillac health care plans is much better evidence about how one party governs.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

I've configured my browser so it can't click on any link which leads to an ann Coulter story, so I haven't read the link. However,

1) No - I suspect that these are appointed/hired positions, not elected, so their political orientation isn't relevant. What's Bernie Madoff's party affiliation?

2) Not a conspiracy in this case, but my impression is that Fox/CNN leave off or add the party affiliation in predictable patterns.

3) No. Well, maybe. By general reaction is that Dems get caught in financial scandals and Republicans get caught in sex scandals. Tea Partiers get caught in logic scandals.

[montanaisaleg.livejournal.com]

I'm not an expert on journalistic practices, but don't they usually use the "D" and "R" to indicate the party that the person was listed on the ballot as being affiliated with? I live in a city with non-partisan elections, and the news never mentions a city candidate's/office holder's party affiliation. If Bell City has non-partisan elections (and it looks like that's the case (http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2010/08/bell-city-scandal-near-la-widens-city.html)), I wouldn't expect them to list the party affiliation.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

1) No. Of course, I'm in Chicagoland, so they almost all have (D) after the name anyway. :P
2) They wouldn't.
3) No. There's plenty of corrupt democrats. The difference is that (usually) progressives want all corrupt pols gone, and that doesn't appear to be the case as much with conservatives.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

1) Legit journalists have no reason to dwell on something like that. Leave that to the bloggers, but I think it's worth mentioning considering how much emphasis some Liberals put on Republicans for being nothing but money-grubbing low-lifes.
2) Because I guess some people think that if it's not front page, above the fold that people are trying to "bury it". It's a waste of time to argue about crap like that.
3) I don't think it's proof of a larger trend. There are people already who think that media outlets who express views primarily opposite to their own are biased and disregard news stories. It's nothing new or growing.