Friday, October 20, 2006

What Liberal Media? Coverage Of Reid Land Deal Greater Than Coverage Of Similarly Questionable Hastert Deal

CNN has given 50 times as much coverage to a controversial land deal by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) than to a land deal made by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL).

Meanwhile, Fox News Channel has mentioned the Reid land deal nine times, but has brought up the Hastert deal just three.

Strangely similar numbers, no?

***

Over on Fox News, Sean Hannity told Bob Novak that “you don’t see as much in the newspapers about this [the Reid land deal], Bob Novak, and I wonder if it would be the same if it was a Republican.”

But as the Center for American Progress notes: "(I)n reality, the media have extensively covered the Reid land deal, while ignoring the $207 million earmark House Speaker Dennis Hastert inserted into the 2005 highway bill that greatly increased the value of his property in Illinois."

According to the Center, Hastert made an astounding 136 percent a year on what he invested, whereas Reid made an annual return of 29 percent, probably quite typical of the profits made by other Las Vegas real estate investors during the same period.

Reid immediately apologized for the oversight lapse and amended his 2001 disclosure forms. Hastert, on the other hand, has done nothing.

11 Comments:

Anonymous trinity said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Reid story only got rolling because of Conservative Talk radio. If not for that the lib media never would have touched it.

8:28 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

In all fairness, Trinity, you cannot even get the allegations right.
No, Trinity, Hastert allegedly did not make the proper disclosures.
The Chicago Sun Times reported back in June that Hastert did not take the extra steps necessary called for in the House Ethics Manual and volunteer that he held land in a secret land trust called "Little Rock Trust."
The Sunlight Foundation, a group dedicated to inform the public about the activities of Congress members, accused Hastert of not divulging connections between the $207 million earmark he won for the Prarie Parkway, and an investment he and his wife made in the nearby land. The Foundation further charges Hastert used the above land trust to invest in real estate near the proposed highway, and notes that Hastert's 2005 financial disclosure form, released in June, makes no mention of the trust.
Yes, Hastert has his defenses, but the matter has never been fully investigated as far as I know. Might a Republican controlled congress have something to do with that?
http://tinyurl.com/lomwc
What's more, Trinity you completely ignore JABBS' point about the far higher profit Hastert generated from his land sale, since the "astounding profit" Reid made seems to be a bone of contention among the Republicans in the matter.
Just more right-wing partisan bias and hypocrisy displayed by Trinity's post, as well as the overall issue of the media highlighting of Reid's land deal while ignoring that of Hastert.

9:33 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

The popular example being cited is that if someone robs a bank and gets caught, they cannot simply smile sheepishly, return the money and say, "Oh well, I got caught. Sorry."
And if it was anything like that, then, yes, your analogy would fit, instead of being ludicrous, which is what it is.

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

reposted to fix html

trinity said...
David R. Mark said...
"Reid immediately apologized for the oversight lapse and amended his 2001 disclosure forms. Hastert, on the other hand, has done nothing.

(rolling eyes) David, perhaps that's because it wasn't necessary for Hastert to amend his financial income forms, since unlike Reid, he had filled them out honestly and completely in the first place.

What Reid did was not a lapse in oversight as you so delicately put it. He quite intentionally left his name out in order to hide the transaction from being discovered. You are mixing apples and oranges. What Reid did was at the very least a serious Senate ethics violation, if not downright illegal. I'll leave that to the authorities to sort out.


click here for a link.

Another thing. If Reid's extremely shady little deal turns out to be an illegal one, an apology would hardly be sufficient to wipe the slate clean. The popular example being cited is that if someone robs a bank and gets caught, they cannot simply smile sheepishly, return the money and say, "Oh well, I got caught. Sorry." Your comment is a bit ludicrous, don't you think?

click here for a link.

Oh, and it was also illegal for Reid to use campaign funds to pay for Christmas gratuities for the hotel support staff.

11:52 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity what does your first link prove, anyway? It says absolutely nothing about Reid and does not support in anyway your preceeding argument:
"What Reid did was not a lapse in oversight as you so delicately put it. He quite intentionally left his name out in order to hide the transaction from being discovered. You are mixing apples and oranges. What Reid did was at the very least a serious Senate ethics violation, if not downright illegal. I'll leave that to the authorities to sort out."

Oh, I got it. Hastert swears he didn't do anything wrong so therefore there must not be any ethics violation (sarcasm).
Instead of repeating your scrawls from above, why don't you address my earlier post.

12:11 PM  
Anonymous MrToffeeLovesYa said...

Liberals are missing the point.

Wake up, liberals. Conservatives are increasing the number of times the Harry Reid scandal gets mentioned, simply by mentioning how many times the Reid scandal hasn't been mentioned. It's a brilliant strategy.

Conservatives can only carry the ball so far. They need the media to pick up the ball and carry it across the goal line -- even if they have to carry the media across the goal line to score.

The problem for liberals is that their commentators aren't mentioning the Denny Hastert land deal enough times -- probably because they are spending so much time mentioning Hastert's alleged role in covering up the Mark Foley page scandal. Bam!

Conservatives can't do liberals' work for them. If liberals want to see the number of times the Hastert land deal is mentioned increase, they need Olbermann, Cafferty, Colmes and the rest to start mentioning how little coverage the Hastert land deal has received, and then hope that the mainstream media will start covering that lack of coverage, if not the actual land deal itself.

As former President Clinton said this week, "Politics is a contact sport." Wake up and smell reality, liberals. Just because conservatives know how to hit below the belt, early and often, doesn't mean that liberals should assume that they have to lay on the ground, writhing in pain and holding their privates. Pow!

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Gabi Hayes said...

pretty disgusting, isn't it? it's why I consider the M$M to be MORE
dangerous to the country than Bush. they'll still be there after this version of corporate fascism is long gone, making things even worse, if possible, than they are now.

here's a good story on Hastert's deal, delineating how he got what he got, and how many MILLIONS he's profiting by, as well as a call for his resignation

written by somebody from the AEI, no less!

click here

2:55 PM  
Anonymous LostInAnomie said...

It's so they can claim that they are giving equal time to party scandals.

Even though they degree of the scandals aren't even close they will still try to give equivalent air time to them. It isn't fair, and the media shouldn't do it, but they are scared of being called "liberal" by the RW noise machine.

It's like during the debates in 2004. Bush would make dozens of misleading or fabricated claims with great consequences to the public understanding. But, to avoid looking like they were purposely going after Bush* for being a liar they would find some statistical claim Kerry made where he used projections instead of current numbers and say he was making dishonest claims.

2:56 PM  
Anonymous blm said...

Their artificially crafted faux balance. Give swiftliars all the time they wanted.

Reason why: Just to balance the fact that public heard for many years that Kerry had been a war hero.

2:56 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

I say get rid of all politicians that have sold their soul and their vote for the all mighty dollar and those that have made any profit on land deals or business deals using their postition as a legislator that is well beyond the normal transaction. When are we as voters going to remove the "FOR SALE" signs for our government and do away with the give away of our tax dollars by voting out all incumbents until we get the message across that we will not tolerate corruption in government.

7:46 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares