NBC, CBS, and ABC Highlight Sanford's GOP Label; Downplayed Label For Disgraced Dem

[shagdrum]

NBC, CBS, and ABC Highlight Sanford's GOP Label; Downplayed Label For Disgraced Dem
By: Kyle Drennen

In the wake of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s admission to having an affair, evening and morning newscasts on NBC, CBS, and ABC all immediately identified him as a Republican. In contrast, in March of last year, the networks rarely identified disgraced New York Governor Eliot Spitzer as a Democrat in the wake of his affair with a prostitute.

In a 2008 study of evening and morning network newscasts following the Spitzer scandal, NewsBusters’ Rich Noyes found that within the first week of news coverage Spitzer was only identified as a Democrat 20% of the time. However, within the first 24 hours of Sanford’s confession to having an affair, he was identified as a Republican 100% of the time, during coverage on all the networks.

On Wednesday, the NBC Nightly News, which failed to give Spitzer’s party affiliation for three days following his scandal, immediately focused on Sanford’s national role in the Republican Party as anchor Brian Williams declared: "In a Republican Party hungry for young stars, he was one of them: Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina...Tonight his political career is in tatters. His state, his party are in some turmoil. And Mark Sanford is no longer being mentioned as a possible GOP nominee for the White House."

On the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric similarly exclaimed: "Tonight, a rising Republican star caught up in scandal. The missing Governor of South Carolina returns with a tearful tale of a foreign affair."

Anchor Charles Gibson on ABC’s World News was no exception, using almost the same language as Couric: "Governor Mark Sanford, a rising star in the Republican Party, considered a presidential candidate by some, came clean today about where he went and why."

The emphasis on Sanford’s Republican ties continued on the Thursday network morning shows, with NBC Today host Matt Lauer opening the show: "And this morning the political future of South Carolina's governor Mark Sanford, a once-rising star in the Republican Party, is very much in doubt." Later in the show, Lauer actually got reaction to the Sanford scandal from disgraced New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, whom he failed to identify as a Democrat.

On the CBS Early Show, correspondent Kelly Cobiella reported: "Sanford, a rising star in the Republican Party, also likely hurt his chances at higher office. Not only admitting to an affair but to misleading the public and his own staff about his disappearance."

ABC’s Diane Sawyer opened Good Morning America by declaring: "What was going on in the mind of South Carolina's governor? A onetime presidential hopeful for the Republican Party. Will he be forced to resign. And who is the mystery woman in Argentina who drove him to risk it all? We are live from South Carolina to Buenos Aires."

 

[Calabrio]

And the apologists will argue that "it's necessary or relevant to the story to mention his political affiliation. Because he's a conservative Republican, the hypocrisy of being involved in an extra-marital affair makes the party affiliation more relevant."

Of course, "hypocrisy"is always the key word here.
Checking in my handy "Saul Alinsky Pocket Handbook for Radicals"- that's be right here as rule 4, "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

 

[TheDude]

A quick Google search revealed this, interesting.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906250041

Fox News omits Republican scandals in assessment of Sanford prospects
June 25, 2009 8:00 pm ET

SUMMARY: In two segments over the course of four hours on June 25, Fox News' James Rosen highlighted only scandals involving Democratsduring reports that purported to examine earlier political sex scandals in an effort to assess South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's situation.

In segments airing between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. ET on June 25, Fox News Washington correspondent James Rosen highlighted only past scandals involving Democrats during reports assessing the potential political impact of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's extramarital affair. Specifically, Rosen's first segment, during the noon ET hour of Fox News' Happening Now, featured pictures of former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, former President Bill Clinton hugging then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky, and former Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry. Rosen's second segment, during the 1 p.m. ET hour of Fox News' The Live Desk, featured Clinton-Lewinsky, Barry, and former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey. Neither segment mentioned any of the numerous sex scandals over a similar time period that involved Republican politicians such as Sen. John Ensign (NV), Sen. David Vitter (LA), and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, among others. By contrast, during the 3 p.m. ET hour of Fox News' Studio B with Shepard Smith, Rosen's report about Sanford and prior political sex scandals featured both Democrats -- Clinton and Barry -- and Republicans -- Vitter and former Sen. Larry Craig (ID). -end snip

*Cue the Fox apologist*

 

[TheDude]

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Which is actually a very good strategy, if said enemy is unable to live by the rules they set for themselves and others.

Sure it wasn't gleaned from Sun Tzu?

 

[Calabrio]

*Cue the Fox apologist*

You don't need an apologist, but someone who can view this fairly.
First, you're talking about a single reporters segment on a news channel. So that is NOT representative of all of the coverage.

And second, you're discussing a very specifc kind of scandal. The political fallout associated with an extra-marital affair.

The list of Republicans mentioned aren't applicable for comparison.
The news about Ensign just broke this week. So you can't analyze the fallout because there hasn't been any time passed yet.

Vitter slept with a prostitute, he didn't have an affair.

Gingrich isn't in public office.

And Larry Craig was sending sexual e-mails to his male pages.

Note, you found this "story" on MediaMatters. A website that doesn't even attempt to present things honestly. I think that it's funded in large part by George Sorros, and it's run by John Podesta's "Center for American Progress" and it's sole purpose is to misrepresent voices in the media that they don't agree with.

You should avoid that website or at least realize that it's an activist website with no regard or interest in honesty.

 

[Calabrio]

Which is actually a very good strategy, if said enemy is unable to live by the rules they set for themselves and others.

Sure it wasn't gleaned from Sun Tzu?

At what point does it stop being about political strategy and simply about what's right and wrong?

I'm not going to defend Sanford, I think I've made that abundantly clear.
But because you fail to live up them, that doesn't mean you should not advocate noble standards.

If this story is used to undermine Sanford as a person, that's fair.
If it's used to undermine the things he advocated, and may have failed to live up to, that's wrong. And unfortunately, that's what the political opportunists in D.C. will do.

Sanford's lack of personal discretion and judgment will be used to undermine the issue of state's rights. And that's a tragedy.

 

[TheDude]

"D", yes, it's more from Sorros.

 

[Calabrio]

"D", yes, it's more from Sorros.

Then why post it?

What point are you making- elaborate.

Are you saying that Fox News was actively trying to convince everyone that Sanford was ACTUALLY a Democrat?

Or do you think the guy typing the kyrons made a brief mistake that was immediately corrected? And the stalkers at mediamatters took a screen capture in the effort to mislead unsophisticated readers?

 

[TheDude]

This isn't the first time Fox has done this.

Let's face it, news agencies are biased and lean one way or the other.

 

[shagdrum]

This isn't the first time Fox has done this.

Let's face it, news agencies are biased and lean one way or the other.

Are you saying Fox News is habitually dishonest in their presentation of the news?

 

[Calabrio]

This isn't the first time Fox has done this.

Let's face it, news agencies are biased and lean one way or the other.

yes, they usually lean left due to the cultural bias associated with journalism.
The Fox NEWS division is no different, though less so.

The OPINIONS presented on Fox, the commentary, does lean conservative/libertarian/tradition- making it unique from the other networks.

You say that this isn't the first time "Fox has done this." True.
They screw up all the time. I pointed that out. ALL OF THE NETWORKS make the mistake with the kyrons regarding party, at least momentarily. On unimportant stories as well.

Are you actually trying to say that they did this on purpose?
That would be absurd.

 

[hrmwrm]

If it's used to undermine the things he advocated, and may have failed to live up to, that's wrong.

and why is this wrong? you don't think somebody should be held to the standards that they would hold others to?
when you hold certain standards, they are the very thing you judge others by. why should he not be judged by his standards?

 

[Calabrio]

and why is this wrong? you don't think somebody should be held to the standards that they would hold others to?
when you hold certain standards, they are the very thing you judge others by. why should he not be judged by his standards?

I elaborated on this point in the thread already.

If this story is used to undermine Sanford as a person, that's fair.
If it's used to undermine the things he advocated, and may have failed to live up to, that's wrong. And unfortunately, that's what the political opportunists in D.C. will do.

If a person is an advocate of a healthy lifestyle and balanced diet, and then is found to have gained 45lbs eating fast food, was it wrong for them to advocate eating healthy in the first place?

Of course not. They simply failed to live up to the standards they set.
And if they were found to be unfaithful to their spouse, would that have anything to do with their promoting a balanced diet? Again, of course not.

I'm not defending Sanford.
I've stated, I think it's in everyone's interest for him to simply step down.
But his actions shouldn't be used to discredit some of the political and social principles he championed. His failures are separate and reflect upon him and him alone.

 

[hrmwrm]

i guess the point i'm more trying to make, is when you hold noble standards and fail to live up to them, it reflects badly on the person AND the standards.
imagine if the pope was caught screwing around? he wouldn't be mentioned as some non descript person.

i get what you mean, the fact he was republican shouldn't matter. but that he was a future presidential run hopeful is going to target the repulican title.
you're right. it's the story tellers who make it seem this way sometimes, but sometimes it's also the circumstance.
it is a war. but when one side keeps pointing fingers and trying to look infallible, this is only the part that adds ammunition back.
it seems of all the wrongs in the world, hypocrisy is right up there with murder, especially so with those who are leading.

 

[Calabrio]

i guess the point i'm more trying to make, is when you hold noble standards and fail to live up to them, it reflects badly on the person AND the standards.
imagine if the pope was caught screwing around? he wouldn't be mentioned as some non descript person.

Nor should he. He's a religious and spiritual leader. Not a politician.
I understand your point, I think you're example is going too far though.

However, even if this hypothetical pope was caught in bed with a reporter in South America, why should that have any reflection on whether the 6th commandment "Though Shall Not Murder" is right or wrong?

Obviously, it wouldn't.

And I think it'd be wrong to argue that murder was now o.k. or that the commandment was without merit because this hypothetical pope was caught with his robes down.

i get what you mean, the fact he was republican shouldn't matter. but that he was a future presidential run hopeful is going to target the Republican title.

I don't think it's wrong to mention that the "Republican Governor or South Carolina" was involved in this scandal. The issue being presented in this thread has to do with the media double standard on this issue. His party affiliation should be part of the story, but not the focus of the story.

When Democrats are involved in equally victimless sexual indiscretions, more often than not you have to invest some energy in discovering what party they are with. The rule of thumb is, (though humorous, usually true) if they don't mention the party of the scumbag in the story, he's a Democrat. If it's a Republican, you'll know in the first paragraph.

So, the topic of this thread was about the perceived media double standard often applied regarding party affiliation.

it seems of all the wrongs in the world, hypocrisy is right up there with murder, especially so with those who are leading.

But being human and failing is not the same as murder.
They are very different.

Again, I go back to the fat person. Is it wrong for a fat person to be a proponent of a healthy lifestyle? No. Is it hypocritical for them? Not necessarily. But if they condemn and punish a person for failing to live up to the standard, while they engage in similar undesirable behavior, it would be.

Sanford gets into a tricky position on that. He's often noted for being very severe regarding Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment. Some of his comments were hypocritical. Others weren't.

The situation with Lewinsky was vastly different. Both cheated on their wives and families. However, one did it with an intern. One did it repeated IN the oval office. One actively had their staff not only cover up for it (some minor similarity there) but there was an active effort to suborn perjury, one lied about it to the public, and lastly, one attempted to DESTROY both the woman involved and any voices who threatened to come forward with the story or investigate it. Vastly different and I think it's either foolish or dishonest when anyone tries to equate the stories.


And going back to your earlier point, even if this hypothetical pope were caught in bed with a woman, why would that suddenly make the 7th commandment, "Though Shall Not Commit Adultery" wrong as well? Why would adultery the value or negatives associated with adultery change because of the failings of a human?

I think the "hypocrite" argument is valid in certain circumstances concerning bad behavior.
I used the fat person before- if he's only suggesting or politely advocating voluntary decision that promote a healthy lifestyle, then his weight is not an issue.
If he's arguing that other people who want to eat a twinkie should be punished, or that twinkies should be banned- then things change. Especially when he has a warehouse full of them stockpiled or is wealthy enough to not care about the increase in price.

I DO think that many of the people involved in the so-called "green movement" are engaged in hypocritical behavior that undermines their credibility. Because they are seeking regressive and aggressive policies enforced by the power of the government to dictate or behavior and consumption, while living very wasteful lifestyles and making millions of dollars for their advocacy.

 

[hrmwrm]

maybe the 6th is not a good example. i think there are many who hold murder as something that's not right irrelevant to a religious commandment.
and then there are interpretations as to when it might be right(war).

But being human and failing is not the same as murder.
They are very different

.
yes they are different. merely pointing out a perception.
when someone runs around talking the talk but later found to be not walking the walk when he is leading people, then his hypocrisy is somewhere up on the same level of disgust.

as for the american media, i've never paid attention enough from a biased viewpoint. but then, once YOU are biased into this perception, you will always view it from that perception whether it be true or false.
kinda like the never do well, who sees those that work for their gifts as always getting something when he's not.
and he's right in this perception, except for the why it is happening.

And going back to your earlier point, even if this hypothetical pope were caught in bed with a woman, why would that suddenly make the 7th commandment, "Though Shall Not Commit Adultery" wrong as well? Why would adultery the value or negatives associated with adultery change because of the failings of a human?

but this one is the point in this instance. if he was abiding by those values, then he shouldn't have failed.
so, was it the failed human, or was it that a religious value just doesn't seem to be as relevant to a changing society?
does HE uphold these values, or does he see them as not fitting in his present lifestyle?
did he fail, as you say; or change his values without notifying his followers?
either way, he's still a hypocrit to the followers.
and his judgement should stand from where his values were thought to lie.
what he did will not lessen the message he ascribed to any less than from him.

 

[Calabrio]

when someone runs around talking the talk but later found to be not walking the walk when he is leading people, then his hypocrisy is somewhere up on the same level of disgust.

Two points, one of which keeps getting lost.
Sanford's credibility when discussing things like traditional moral values, particularly regarding fidelity, has certainly been undermined. That's reasonable to expect.

That should impact HIS ability to discuss or represent the issue. Especially noting that he isn't the lone voice, or the most prominent spokesperson, it has no reflection on the actual issues as they relate to society.

But even more importantly, Sanford's perceived failings associated with his marriage should have absolutely nothing to do with his opinions on completely unrelated things. For example, state's rights and the role of the federal government.

And though it's political expedient, and political hacks and puppets will work hard to make the link, it's wrong and dishonest to do that. Sanford's failed marriage has nothing to do with whether or not the federal government is taking too much power from the states.

as for the american media, i've never paid attention enough from a biased viewpoint.

More likely you've never paid attention,
and you already have a biased view, so you wouldn't notice.
The OP in this thread gave statistics supporting the view.
I won't push this issue any further, however, in the coming months, I ask you to watch for this double standard. More often than not, you'll view confirmation of what I've stated.

but this one is the point in this instance. if he was abiding by those values, then he shouldn't have failed. so, was it the failed human, or was it that a religious value just doesn't seem to be as relevant to a changing society?
does HE uphold these values, or does he see them as not fitting in his present lifestyle?
did he fail, as you say; or change his values without notifying his followers?
either way, he's still a hypocrit to the followers.
and his judgement should stand from where his values were thought to lie.
what he did will not lessen the message he ascribed to any less than from him.

Unfortunately, we've used a hypothetical Pope and I get the impression you're going to try to use this as as a soap box to expand this into the realm of theology and religious values.

I can follow you down that rabbit hole, but I don't think it'll be productive and I anticipate that the thread will be come increasingly adversarial and off-topic as a result. I think it's in all of our interest to avoid that.

Could you reframe that argument so that it's about the fat person example I gave instead?

 

[shagdrum]

Another form of "hypocrisy" that should be considered; a former drug addict turned drug councilor. Does that hypocrisy nullify their credibility when claiming that drugs are bad and preaching that you shouldn't do them, or does it strengthen the claim?

OR, to make it more personal, what about a parent who, in their younger days had a drug and/or drinking problem (or some other vice) that they now preach to their kid to avoid?

When is hypocrisy acceptable or not and why?

 

[Calabrio]

Another form of "hypocrisy" that should be considered; a former drug addict turned drug councilor. Does that hypocrisy nullify their credibility when claiming that drugs are bad and preaching that you shouldn't do them, or does it strengthen the claim?

OR, to make it more personal, what about a parent who, in their younger days had a drug and/or drinking problem (or some other vice) that they now preach to their kid to avoid?

When is hypocrisy acceptable or not and why?

In that case, you're dealing with a reformed offender.
Someone who has made a mistake, conceivably seen the error of their ways, and now has abandoned any perceived destructive behavior. Have made their way through the problem, and not continuing to engage in the behavior would arguably give them insight. And since they don't do the behavior any longer, not make them a hypocrite.

With that said, when it's convenient,some would inevitably make the argument that they are a hypocrite since they engaged in the behavior in the past and simply want to deny others the "fun" or experience since they've already enjoyed it.

But that's the problem. People can make excuse to dismiss voices they disagree with all day long.

If they hadn't engaged in the behavior, they don't understand. If they did and saw the error, they are a hypocrite.

 

[hrmwrm]

Another form of "hypocrisy" that should be considered; a former drug addict turned drug councilor.

except this one is more the drug councillor turned addict.

Unfortunately, we've used a hypothetical Pope and I get the impression you're going to try to use this as as a soap box to expand this into the realm of theology and religious values.

i wasn't going to do that. was just using him as a symbol of high moral character. he's got some tough things to live up to, to be an example for the rest. and my paragraph was more about the governor. sorry that wasn't clear. after quoting about the pope, it would seem like that. not my intention.

I won't push this issue any further, however, in the coming months, I ask you to watch for this double standard. More often than not, you'll view confirmation of what I've stated.

as i watch the news, i'll try and view it in a perspective rather than just as information then. see if i notice anything.

 

[foxpaws]

It sounds rational – don’t associate Sanford’s little sexual debacle with his stand on rejecting stimulus funds for his state. However, his week long absence, without regard to his responsibilities to the people who elected him to office, should be brought into question when regarding his stand on not taking the stimulus money.

He apparently didn’t care that the state was left without knowing the whereabouts of its top elected official, something that he is required to inform state officials about. If he cares so little about those people, leaving them ‘high and dry’ while he was off with his mistress for a week – then why should they believe he has their best interests at heart when it comes to either accepting or rejecting the stimulus money?

I think you can start to question his motives. He spent state funds to see his mistress – and although now he says he will repay the state, he certainly wasn’t going to until it came up in the press that $8000 of the people’s money was spent to fund a little rendezvous in Argentina. Once again – was he thinking about what was best for the people in his state – nope, he just saw a great way to get some on the people’s dollar.

So, do you believe that he truly has the peoples' best interest in mind when he is challenging the stimulus money? He has shown that regarding the 'peoples' interest,' it can come in second to his own personal interests. Perhaps there is also some other motive regarding his rather loud rejection of the stimulus money. Could it be to further a political career? Remember, he really has no say in whether or not his state receives money - it is up to his state legislature. His protests are mostly for show, and perhaps some political persuasion.

Oh, and do check the double standard on the 'labeling' of political figures... I just glanced at the 'breaking stories' regarding Stanford and Spitzer in a couple of fairly left leaning rags - Washington Post, NYT, and USA Today - in all 3 instances the word 'Democrat' appears within the first two paragraphs of the breaking story - the word 'Republican appears within the first 4 paragraphs. The party labeling occurs for the Dems often before the Reps, even in those rather liberal newspapers.

 

[shagdrum]

He apparently didn’t care that the state was left without knowing the whereabouts of its top elected official, something that he is required to inform state officials about.

Teddy Roosevelt did that a lot as president. Can you show where it is actually a requirement for Sanford's office?

Sanford did abuse his power (though he did pay the money back, from what I understand) and he has shown that he cannot be trusted due to his lack of integrity when it comes to his marriage vows. For those reasons alone he should step down.

However, it is a stretch to start questioning his motives when it comes to the stimulus money.

First, he has shown a lack of judgment in one particular area. He was deceitful and selfish when it came to getting a piece of @$$. What does rejecting stimulus money have to do with that? Your connection of the two is tenuous at best.

Second, he has been very forthcoming with his reasons for rejecting the stimulus money. You can question his motives all day long, but those reasons stand and this indecent in no way counters any of those reasons.

To start connecting his affair to the stimulus thing is a huge stretch and the type of dishonest "political hackery" that it seems Cal was talking about. It clearly is aimed at looking at motives and not the reasons he gave that logically support his actions in the area of stimulus money; obfuscation and dishonest marginalization.

Oh, and do check the double standard on the 'labeling' of political figures... I just glanced at the 'breaking stories' regarding Stanford and Spitzer in a couple of fairly left leaning rags - Washington Post, NYT, and USA Today - in all 3 instances the word 'Democrat' appears within the first two paragraphs of the breaking story - the word 'Republican appears within the first 4 paragraphs. The party labeling occurs for the Dems often before the Reps, even in those rather liberal newspapers.

The article I originally posted says different. Can you offer links to those stories you talk about? Were these stories part of the initial coverage of the Spitzer thing? It is very easy to cherry pick info to make the claim you are making here, especially when we only have your claims to go on regarding those stories.

 

[foxpaws]

Teddy Roosevelt did that a lot as president. Can you show where it is actually a requirement for Sanford's office?

So - Teddy Roosevelt was wrong too...

What he should have done...

"While I believe every person deserves a vacation, our constitution gives only one man authority to act in case of an emergency - the governor of South Carolina. Should the governor decide to vacation away from South Carolina again, it is my sincere hope that he will take his security detail and keep his cell phone on so that he can be reached in case of a large-scale emergency," the statement said.

"If he is not willing to do so, he should turn his gubernatorial authority over to the lieutenant governor,” it continued.

Sanford did abuse his power (though he did pay the money back, from what I understand) and he has shown that he cannot be trusted due to his lack of integrity when it comes to his marriage vows. For those reasons alone he should step down.

He only paid the money back because he was caught...

To start connecting his affair to the stimulus thing is a huge stretch and the type of dishonest "political hackery" that it seems Cal was talking about. It clearly is aimed at looking at motives and not the reasons he gave that logically support his actions in the area of stimulus money; obfuscation and dishonest marginalization.

No - I am connecting his dereliction of duty... and the fact he stole money (repaying it after you are caught doesn't erase the 'crime') to determine whether or not he has the people's best interests in mind.

The article I originally posted says different. Can you offer links to those stories you talk about? Were these stories part of the initial coverage of the Spitzer thing? It is very easy to cherry pick info to make the claim you are making here, especially when we only have your claims to go on regarding those stories.

Your article I believe just mentions TV... I don't watch network news much - I was looking at another media, one that is often criticized for the same thing...

Revelation could cost Spitzer political future
N.Y. governor apologizes after report links him to pricey prostitution ring
By Andrea Stone
USA TODAY
2nd paragraph...

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.​

Sanford was in Argentina, not hiking on the Appalachian Trail
USA Today
5th paragraph

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he was in Buenos Aires -- not hiking on the Appalachian Trail -- during four days when he dropped out of sight, The State newspaper of Columbia, S.C., reports.

He will hold a news conference at 2 p.m ET.

Sanford told the newspaper in an exclusive interview that he went to Argentina to recharge after a difficult legislative session in which he battled lawmakers over accepting federal stimulus funds. "It was a long session, and I needed a break," he told the paper.

His whereabouts touched off a media frenzy after even his wife said she didn't know where he was. His staff told reporters that he had gone hiking on the Appalachian Trail, but that was followed by reports that his cellphone had been used near Atlanta.

The Republican governor said he doesn't know why his staff said he was hiking but noted in fairness that he had said he "might" hit the Appalachian Trail.
​

Spitzer Linked To Prostitution Ring by Wiretap
By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 11, 2008; Page A01
2nd paragraph

New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer's political future was thrown in doubt yesterday after he was identified as an anonymous client heard on a federal wiretap arranging to pay money and buy train tickets for a high-priced New York prostitute to meet him at a downtown Washington hotel.

A person familiar with the case said Spitzer was one of the unnamed clients of a New York area prostitution ring mentioned in federal court documents unsealed last week. Spitzer, a rising star in the Democratic Party who has been in office for 14 months, did not directly address the allegations in a hastily called news conference, and he made no mention of resigning. But as he dropped from public view, canceling all of his planned events, his political career seemed in limbo last night amid speculation that he was preparing to step down.​

S.C. Gov. Sanford Admits to an Affair
He Was Visiting Woman in Argentina
By Philip Rucker and Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 25, 2009
3rd paragraph

It all started innocently, the South Carolina governor said, when he and a woman struck up a conversation eight years ago. She confided in him about being separated from her husband, and Mark Sanford provided comfort, advising her to get back together for the sake of her two sons, and because marriage is sacred. He asked for her e-mail address and they kept in touch, he from the United States and she from Argentina.

Then, about a year ago, came "that whole sparking thing," he said yesterday afternoon at a news conference. The relationship turned romantic and went into "serious overdrive." The couple rendezvoused twice, both times secretly. But the third meeting would not be so discreet.

Sanford (R) disappeared from his state for nearly a week, including Father's Day, infuriating lawmakers in Columbia and leaving behind befuddled staff members who said they thought their boss was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. But he actually had left the governor's mansion in a state-issued SUV and jetted to Buenos Aires, where he spent five days with the woman.​

Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring
By DANNY HAKIM and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: March 10, 2008
New York Times
3rd paragraph

ALBANY - Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation.

The wiretap captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room, according to an affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan. The person briefed on the case and the law enforcement official identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.

Mr. Spitzer, a first term Democrat, today made a brief public appearance during which he apologized for his behavior, and described it as a “private matter.” He did not address his political future.​

Upon Return, Sanford Admits Extramarital Affair
By Kate Phillips
June 24, 2009, 2:40 pm
New York Times
4th paragraph

At a news conference in Columbia, S.C., Gov. Mark Sanford has now admitted that he had an extramarital affair with someone in Argentina, as he attempted to explain his mysterious disappearance from the state last week.

He said he had developed a relationship with someone in Argentina during the past year. Mr. Sanford returned from Buenos Aires this morning, after leaving the state capital last Thursday. His whereabouts had become a source of nearly national speculation, with aides first saying they didn’t know where he was, then saying he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail but unreachable.

It wasn’t until this morning that Mr. Sanford’s real location became known when a reporter for The State confronted him as he returned via the Atlanta airport.

Mr. Sanford also said he would resign from his position as head of the Republican Governors Association.​

 

[shagdrum]

So - Teddy Roosevelt was wrong too...

You are missing the point. Sanford being absent is not that big of a deal. You are sensationalizing.

You started out claiming he was "required to inform state officials about [his whereabouts]". You have yet to show that to be the case.

No - I am connecting his dereliction of duty... and the fact he stole money (repaying it after you are caught doesn't erase the 'crime') to determine whether or not he has the people's best interests in mind.

The connection you are making is tenuous at best. He put his own interests ahead of the state's in a specific area where most people tend to be selfish and irrational; matters of the heart. That motivation is not present in the area of stimulus spending. Sanford has been very open and forthcoming in his reasons for rejecting the stimulus funds (reasons you are now ignoring). To try and imply that he is somehow being disingenuous in that reasoning due to his affair and/or his leaving for a few days is inherently dishonest and opportunistic.

'Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It and Polarize It.’
-Saul Alinsky​

Your article I believe just mentions TV... I don't watch network news much - I was looking at another media, one that is often criticized for the same thing...

CBS, ABC and NBC do multiple stories a day on those events as opposed to newspapers which do (usually) one story a day. So you are already comparing apples to oranges. Also, the original article in the first post of this thread never talked about newspaper sources; only cable news.

Also, three examples don't establish a pattern or disprove one. If you actually watch for these things in news coverage, then it is patently obvious that in most any type of media dominated by the left there is a clear double standard. When they actually do cover stories about corruption on the left, they hardly ever even mention the political affiliation of the politician and when they do it is buried in the story. When they cover any supposed corruption on the right, the party of the politician is one of the first things mentioned in the story.

 

[foxpaws]

You are missing the point. Sanford being absent is not that big of a deal. You are sensationalizing.

You started out claiming he was "required to inform state officials about [his whereabouts]". You have yet to show that to be the case.

"I think Mr. Sanford did several things wrong here," Sloan said. "First the disappearing act -- the South Carolina Constitution requires that somebody be left in charge and Mr. Sanford did not leave anybody in charge, and the Lt. Governor was completely at sea here..."

That motivation is not present in the area of stimulus spending. Sanford has been very open and forthcoming in his reasons for rejecting the stimulus funds (reasons you are now ignoring). To try and imply that he is somehow being disingenuous in that reasoning due to his affair and/or his leaving for a few days is inherently dishonest and opportunistic.

He took state funds, which is dishonest, using the opportunity to go to Argentina,... I really don't think I need to say much more...

CBS, ABC and NBC do multiple stories a day on those events as opposed to newspapers which do (usually) one story a day. So you are already comparing apples to oranges. Also, the original article in the first post of this thread never talked about newspaper sources; only cable news.

Also, three examples don't establish a pattern or disprove one. If you actually watch for these things in news coverage, then it is patently obvious that in most any type of media dominated by the left there is a clear double standard. When they actually do cover stories about corruption on the left, they hardly ever even mention the political affiliation of the politician and when they do it is buried in the story.

I forgot the magic words 'for example'