Thread: 60 minutes bias example

I watched 60 minutes the other night and their report on Jack Abramoff was a perfect example of liberal bias. If you went by this show Jack was a Republican who dealt with nobody but republicans and the word democrat never came up in the story. If you were the normal viewer who doesn't pay attention to the news the story left you with the impression that this scandal was all republican all the time. The truth is a bit different.


"The Indians' largess flowed to higher-ranking Democrats as well. Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Daschle each received more than $40,000 from the tribes and from lobbyists on Abramoff's team during the period. Gephardt got $32,500.
Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.
Over that period, while Abramoff and his lobbyists directed nearly $4 million in funds from the tribes to lawmakers, they also gave from their own pockets. Two-thirds of the total went to Republicans and one-third was handed out to Democrats, according to The Post's calculations."


"Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.
But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.
Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November. "


Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations


If you missed the show here it is. How many times do you here the word democrat?

Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook - YouTube

The OP is a perfect example of a straw man.

He misrepresent the 60 minutes story to make his case.

FAIL.

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

I watched 60 minutes the other night and their report on Jack Abramoff was a perfect example of liberal bias. If you went by this show Jack was a Republican who dealt with nobody but republicans and the word democrat never came up in the story. If you were the normal viewer who doesn't pay attention to the news the story left you with the impression that this scandal was all republican all the time. The truth is a bit different.


"The Indians' largess flowed to higher-ranking Democrats as well. Senate Democratic leaders Reid and Daschle each received more than $40,000 from the tribes and from lobbyists on Abramoff's team during the period. Gephardt got $32,500.
Of the 18 largest recipients of tribe contributions directed by Abramoff's group, six, or one-third, were Democrats. These included Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2001 to 2002, and Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.), a leader in Indian affairs legislation.
Over that period, while Abramoff and his lobbyists directed nearly $4 million in funds from the tribes to lawmakers, they also gave from their own pockets. Two-thirds of the total went to Republicans and one-third was handed out to Democrats, according to The Post's calculations."


"Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers to act on their clients' behalf.
But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.
Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November. "


Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations


If you missed the show here it is. How many times do you here the word democrat?

Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook - YouTube

You have absolutely misrepresented this story. The only politicans mentioned are Tom Delay and Bob Ney, both convicted of felonies. Bob Ney himself in the story says that Bush staffers were all over the bar where Abramoff's people hung out. Knowing sixty minutes, if a Democrat had been convicted in connection with Abramoff, said Dem would have been named in the story as well.

So, your "bias" story is not biased at all.

Originally Posted by hazlnut

The OP is a perfect example of a straw man.

He misrepresent the 60 minutes story to make his case.

FAIL.

So unusual for this poster.

Let me address a few points. I'll address the first sentence of the op at the end:

1. If you went by this show Jack was a Republican who dealt with nobody but republicans and the word democrat never came up in the story. If you were the normal viewer who doesn't pay attention to the news the story left you with the impression that this scandal was all republican all the time.

Correct. The report did give the impression that Abramoff's corrupt dealings were only with republicans, and the word "democrat" was never said.

2. The truth is a bit different

It's true that Abramoff's financial influence/pay-offs did involve members of both partys.

3. I watched 60 minutes the other night and their report on Jack Abramoff was a perfect example of liberal bias.

Sawyer, you know that liberal bias in the main stream media is an issue I dedicate a lot of time to investigating and writing about. With that in mind, I have to say that the CBS story is not one that I would have posted as "a perfect example of liberal bias". In fact, I wouldn't have posted it at all as being biased and here's why.

Not mentioning "democrats" was understandable, because this story was centered around the corruption trial involving Indian gaming and the major players, as well as the ones convicted of any wrong doing, were republicans. The reason that's so, is because this particular issue took place when republicans controlled the senate, congress and the White House. They were the ones that had to be "bought" for Abramoff to be successful... If the democrats had been in control of one or more branches of government back then, they would would have been bought off as well, played a larger role in the scandal, and I fully expect would have been part of the CBS story.

Personally, I thought the story was top notch. It was accurate, informative, and even though is was centered around some key republicans, I didn't see anything in the story that singled republicans out as being more corrupt than any other party... ie, not gratuitous political jibes or attacks.

I hate to have to disagree with you sawyer, but I don't see that story as a classic case of liberal bias by CBS. However, because we are just a few months away from a national election, there is one thing CBS should have done in the interest of fairness and political neutrality. Somewhere in that story, they should have mentioned that he influenced and payed off lawmakers from both political parties... In fact, here are the transcripts of the interview taken from aprox the 9:40 mark in that video, with my suggestion in red added in:

Ney would eventually serve 17 months in federal prison, the only congressman who was ever charged in the scandal. But Abramoff says that there were many other members that did his bidding that could have been charged. Members from both sides of the political isle.

You know, something like that so the audience doesn't think the corruption is exclusively from the republicans.

Damn, I was so ready to hang me some medias, well back to living my life... some should probably get one...

Originally Posted by notquiteright

Damn, I was so ready to hang me some medias, well back to living my life... some should probably get one...

Here's an idea... If a thread doesn't interest you, rather that posting just to insult or attack someone, how about moving on and not posting to it at all?

Originally Posted by Grim17

Sawyer, you know that liberal bias in the main stream media is an issue I dedicate a lot of time to investigating and writing about.

No dude.

No.

You just spend a whole lot of time and energy bitching about it while completely ignoring it if it benefits Conservative candidates or the Republican party.

You see because you say stuff like this:

Originally Posted by Grim17

Progressives are nothing but a bunch of racists.

And the last time I brought this up you retreated and tried to claim you were being sarcastic.

No Grim, no you weren't.

This is being Sarcastic:

"Progressives are nothing but bunch of racists "

"Progressives are nothing but a bunch of racists... j/k"

No grim, you are a partisan hack who has no business talking about bias, because bias to you is only when something is not portrayed the way YOU WANT IT TO BE.

Your bitching and whining about the supposed "liberal bias" is just you pissed off it's not conservative right wing commentary.

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

No dude.

No.

You just spend a whole lot of time and energy bitching about it while completely ignoring it if it benefits Conservative candidates or the Republican party.

You see because you say stuff like this:





And the last time I brought this up you retreated and tried to claim you were being sarcastic.

No Grim, no you weren't.

This is being Sarcastic:

"Progressives are nothing but bunch of racists "

"Progressives are nothing but a bunch of racists... j/k"

No grim, you are a partisan hack who has no business talking about bias, because bias to you is only when something is not portrayed the way YOU WANT IT TO BE.

Your bitching and whining about the supposed "liberal bias" is just you pissed off it's not conservative right wing commentary.

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

And the last time I brought this up you retreated and tried to claim you were being sarcastic.

No Grim, no you weren't.

I write a post saying a CBS story on 60 Minutes is not an example of liberal bias, and instead of addressing that, you decide to launch a partisan personal attack and call me a liar.

Talk about political rage.

And for the last time... I was being sarcastic. If that weren't the case, don't you think I would have expressed that sentiment more than just once in nearly 8000 posts?

You can call me a lot of things, but a liar isn't one of them.