• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ray Nagin Convicted of Corruption and bribery.

How do you feel about mentioning party

  • His party is not relative to the story so it's not relevant

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • This is liberal media bias

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • Mentioning of party is always important

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Mentioning of party is never important

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • Walter Chronkite

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12
pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ray Nagin was the Democratic Mayor when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in late August 2005. Recently he was found guilty of corruption and bribery . In the following mashup, none of the networks ABC, CBS or NBC mentioned he was a Democrat. How do you feel about corruption and network news mentioning the party? I can see if a seat in either the House or Senate were to become vacant, it would be important to mention the party because it will ultimately need to be filled. But the mayor of a city, I don't see it important.

His party is not relative to the story so it's not relevant
This is liberal media bias
Mentioning of party is always important
Mentioning of party is never important
Walter Chronkite


Multiple choice

 
Ray Nagin was a Republican all of his adult life until he decided to run for mayor of New Orleans. Then and ONLY then did he switch Parties because he knew he would never get elected as a Republican.

Your welcome. :)
 
I don't really care whether party affiliation is mentioned or not, as long as the media applies the same standards to both democrats and republicans... Which unfortunately, they don't do.
 
Grim17 said:
I don't really care whether party affiliation is mentioned or not, as long as the media applies the same standards to both democrats and republicans... Which unfortunately, they don't do.
Click to expand...
Some times they do and some times they don't, there doesn't seem to be any consistency to it. Of course as partisans we tend to see what we want to see and block everything else out. You had a video of Brian Williams declaring the party of the disgraced Republican Congressman who resigned and not the party of Ray Nagin in the same broadcast. Since there was an empty seat in the House it was important to mention his party, not so much for Ray Nagin.
 
pbrauer said:
Ray Nagin was the Democratic Mayor when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in late August 2005. Recently he was found guilty of corruption and bribery . In the following mashup, none of the networks ABC, CBS or NBC mentioned he was a Democrat. How do you feel about corruption and network news mentioning the party? I can see if a seat in either the House or Senate were to become vacant, it would be important to mention the party because it will ultimately need to be filled. But the mayor of a city, I don't see it important.

His party is not relative to the story so it's not relevant
This is liberal media bias
Mentioning of party is always important
Mentioning of party is never important
Walter Chronkite


Multiple choice
Click to expand...


I don't think we need to mention party. Republocrats in general are corrupt jerks living off the freedom of the individuals to pay towards their corporate pals. This is just a start, throw them all in jail; would be a much better use of jail.
 
pbrauer said:
Some times they do and some times they don't, there doesn't seem to be any consistency to it. Of course as partisans we tend to see what we want to see and block everything else out.
Click to expand...

Really Pete... Then how about you provide some examples of the big 3 reporting on a scandal that just broke, where it was a republican involved and none of them mentioned the party affiliation?

If it is all just a random thing, then for every example I find of the big 3 mentioning the party affiliation of a republican politician or former politician in every single story they run, you should be able to find the same when it's a democrat.

I look forward to you backing up your opinion with facts Pete.
 
Grim17 said:
Really Pete... Then how about you provide some examples of the big 3 reporting on a scandal that just broke, where it was a republican involved and none of them mentioned the party affiliation?

If it is all just a random thing, then for every example I find of the big 3 mentioning the party affiliation of a republican politician or former politician in every single story they run, you should be able to find the same when it's a democrat.

I look forward to you backing up your opinion with facts Pete.
Click to expand...
It's an opinion, I have a right to have an opinion without examples. I don't look for stuff like that and have no one who will do that for me. You don't do it either, you have the MRC that does it for you. And as I've mentioned this to you before they are biased and cherry-pick. Media Matters has much better fish to fry than to look at trivial items like checking for party mentions. In my opinion, if you are looking for party mentions, you really have nothing at all. Zip, zilch, nata
 
pbrauer said:
It's an opinion, I have a right to have an opinion without examples. I don't look for stuff like that and have no one who will do that for me. You don't do it either, you have the MRC that does it for you.
Click to expand...

Sure you have the right to have an opinion without examples... It's what's known as a "baseless opinion". Of course in this case you couldn't have had anything else, because you know as well as I do you couldn't find any examples even if you wanted to.

You'd probably have a better chance finding a needle in a haystack the size of Rhode Island, then to find examples to back up that opinion..

And as I've mentioned this to you before they are biased and cherry-pick. Media Matters has much better fish to fry than to look at trivial items like checking for party mentions. In my opinion, if you are looking for party mentions, you really have nothing at all. Zip, zilch, nata
Click to expand...

"Cherry picked" implies that there are examples that are the opposite of the ones I posted, that I purposely ignored because they contradicted my point... The problem with that is, nobody has shown me any of those that I avoided. Without them, I could not have "cherry picked" a damned thing.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
Sure you have the right to have an opinion without examples... It's what's known as a "baseless opinion". Of course in this case you couldn't have had anything else, because you know as well as I do you couldn't find any examples even if you wanted to.

You'd probably have a better chance finding a needle in a haystack the size of Rhode Island, then to find examples to back up that opinion..



"Cherry picked" implies that there are examples that are the opposite of the ones I posted, that I purposely ignored because they contradicted my point... The problem with that is, nobody has shown me any of those that I avoided. Without them, I could not have "cherry picked" a damned thing.
Click to expand...
Like I said you have someone looking for you...MRC... I don't. It's not broadcast TV, but here is an example..

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/165313-name-party.html
 
pbrauer said:
Like I said you have someone looking for you...MRC... I don't. It's not broadcast TV, but here is an example..

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-media/165313-name-party.html
Click to expand...

No thanks Pete, I'm going to remain on topic... You voiced an opinion, and that was based on what I said, and the examples I provided from the news broadcasts from ABC, NBC and CBS...

Since I know you won't find any examples to back up your opinion, I would assume this discussion is now over.
 
Grim17 said:
No thanks Pete, I'm going to remain on topic... You voiced an opinion, and that was based on what I said, and the examples I provided from the news broadcasts from ABC, NBC and CBS...

Since I know you won't find any examples to back up your opinion, I would assume this discussion is now over.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did provide examples, but you didn't find them yourself, you had the MRC do it for you.
I find it exceedingly strange with all this supposed liberal bias out there, your stuck on a trivial item. Most people don't need to have the networks tell them Nagin is a Democrat because he's black.
 
theclown said:
Ray Nagin was a Republican all of his adult life until he decided to run for mayor of New Orleans. Then and ONLY then did he switch Parties because he knew he would never get elected as a Republican.


Your welcome. :)
Click to expand...

In a January 13, 2006 interview on the Tavis Smiley Show, Nagin himself denied these rumors, stating that he "never was a Republican" and that he has been a "life-long Democrat", and several of the news sources reporting that he was a Republican have since issued retractions.

A Shrinking New Orleans

You're welcome.
 
The MSM goes out of its way to mention one party and by omission, ignores the other. My vote is always mention the political party. Mr. "Chocolate City" was an arrogant bastard - couldn't happen to a better guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom