<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2006-10-13

And, Of Course ,The Post Is Running For The Dems [UPDATED]

Today's example is a combination pointless hit piece/real story burial. First, ON THE FRONT PAGE:

Panama trip has pol on hot seat
Republican congressional candidate Rick O'Donnell, who has blasted politicians who accept perks, took an expenses-paid trip to Panama with his girlfriend arranged by a TV station doing business with a state agency he headed.

Of course, later in the article--below the fold--you find this useful bit of information:

"Based upon the state ethics guidelines I follow, it's 100 percent permissible, 100 percent allowable, because I was there in my official capacity as the head of higher education with our sponsorship agency," he said.

And this lovely bit of information:

Scott Chase, spokesman for Perlmutter, had encouraged a reporter to look into the trip, saying the Perlmutter campaign had learned about it from a former employee of the commission.

Really? The Post doesn't see a problem with that? In paragraph 19 we learn that a reporter for the Post became a tool for the Perlmutter campaign, and that story ends up on the front page. . .

And the Post doesn't see a problem with that?

But there's other mini scandals to look into right now also. Like the sweetheart real estate deal that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid got--which netted him $1.1. million--and where does it show up in the Post?

Not sure. I don't waste my money subscribing.

But the story is not on the website anywhere.

So the Post finds a trip to Panama (whoo-whee!!) by a candidate worthy of the front page, but buries a story about the Senate Minority Leader's breach of Senate rules worth a cool million unworthy of a web page.

One might ask what the real difference in the two stories is . . .

but one really doesn't have to.

UPDATE: here is a link to the Post story on Harry Reid's land deal. It was not available through the Post website search engine a couple nights ago, but Curious Stranger has provided he link.

I think the point is still good, though. On what page of the Post did these 13 paragraphs show up, and how does that placement compare to the 20-plus paragraphs the Post devoted to the O'Donnell story?
Posted by: Michael / 10/13/2006 01:19:00 AM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?