I’ve noted before in this blog about media disparity in covering Democratic and Republican politicians, in that stories about Republicans tend to get friendly headlines, while stories about Democrats tend to get cast in a negative, opportunistic light. Past examples: On July 13, 2003, CNN asked the question, “Has the criticism of CIA Director George Tenet been unfairly politicized?” while just two days before, a story about Democrats in the same news service read, “Democrats grow bolder in criticism of Bush on Iraq,” reporting straight away that Democrats sensed “vulnerabilty” and were going for it; the story was accompanied by the note, “Republicans say Democrats are playing politics, trying to make some headway in the upcoming 2004 election.”

I blogged here about how, during the 2004 election campaign, Democrats like Gore were shown in photographs that captured them looking silly, while Bush was presented photographically as serene, strong, and presidential. And just earlier this year, I noted how CNN presented Hillary Clinton and Trent Lott making an appearance together, and Clinton was cast as being the scheming political one, just as CNN took a base, partisan attack by Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman at face value, reporting it as if Democrats had actually been indicted in a crime or targeted by an official investigation, instead of having simply been the target of a smear by a political hack.

And most of this comes from CNN, a “left-leaning” network.

Well, now we have scandal piled upon scandal among Republicans–big, hot, juicy, steamy stories, the kind which the media is supposed to love, the kind which the media is supposed to fall all over in spite of their political leanings… but guess what? Among the big news media outfits, Republicans are being given soft treatment, relative to the situation, while Democratic politicians are being cast as opportunistic. Some headlines:

Democrats See Chance in Foley’s District (ABC News)
Along With Victories, GOP Takes a Few Blows (New York Times)
Democrats see opportunity in Fla. district where congressman resigned after e-mails to teen (Boston Herald)
GOP leaders defend handling of page scandal (Chicago Tribune)

And good old reliable left-wing bastion CNN got their reverse-whammy headline in:

GOP leaders assail Foley amid Democratic criticism

The CNN story leads off with how Hastert and Boehner, the two top Republicans who knew about a pedophile sexual predator in their ranks almost a year ago and did little or nothing, were attacking Foley and demanding an investigation; their foreknowledge was also presented, but not as powerfully, and certainly not in the headline–while Democrats, in the headline and in the second half of the story, are portrayed as seeking to “take advantage” of the situation politically, as if this were a major focus of the story from a national news perspective. As I’ve said in prior entries, if this were a Democratic scandal, the headlines would not be as flattering, and Republican manipulation would go unreported–like with he story on William J. Jefferson, caught accepting bribes 6 months ago. Republicans took full advantage of that, but did the press cover it that way? Hell, no–Republican motives to use the story were largely if not completely absent, despite their taking full advantage to make it look like Democrats were as corrupt as Republicans amidst the Abramoff scandal.

True, most press stories at present are focusing on the scandal on its own–but for so many of the big news outlets to give the GOP such favorable headline and story slants is rather much.

Meanwhile, I would not at all be surprised if the newly released videotape of the 9/11 hijackers via the British press were not coincidental, but rather a well-timed and immediate attempt to control the news cycle–something which probably will not be wondered aloud, but likely we’d already be hearing about if Democrats were suspected, I’d wager.

As it stands, the GOP is taking a huge black eye over this, and will continue (rightfully) to take a beating in the media. My point, however, is that such beatings, even in extreme situations like this one, tend to be blunted by softball coverage like I’ve listed above.

Once again, damn to hell that persistent, overwhelmingly liberal media!

Addendum: Josh Marshall on why the media didn’t pick up the story, even though it was released to them last Fall. According to the St. Petersburg Times, they didn’t want to run with a story like that with only an anonymous source.

You might be surprised to learn that I wholeheartedly support and encourage such editorial restraint. Unfortunately, most media outlets will be hypocrites for stating such, as there was certainly no dearth of stories about Clinton from “anonymous” sources during his administration that they had no problem running. If they’re consistent, fine.

Update: And here we go with some more:

Democrats seize on Foley e-mail scandal (MSN)
WH: Bush ‘as shocked as everyone else’ at Foley charges (CNN International)
Dems slap GOP for keeping e-mails secret (Houston Chronicle)
Hastert Requests Criminal Probe of Foley (AP)

Note that the stories focus on either the Democrats’ opportunism or the Republicans’ calling for a probe–the lion’s share of headlines this morning (Japan time) in Google News–with the errant “White House” angle which just as inaptly omits Republican wrongdoing, taking attention away from it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the primary elements of the story here is that the Republican leadership knew of the story and covered it up, allowing a pedophile sexual predator to continue preying on kids–something which seems to be covered less and less, not more and more.

Update II: The New York Times has a warm and fuzzy piece on how pages saw Foley as a cool, caring guy. Question: is it appropriate, let alone standard, to write a piece about a man who sexually harassed teenage boys, which focuses on all the teens them man did not go beyond a certain point with, who were gratified by the attention, thinking it was without ulterior motive?