What was the political party of all those arrested in Bell California?

As I mentioned in this thread-Bell officials arrested. 8 government officials were arrested in Bell California. One thing I did not mention was what party they belonged to. It never occurred to me to ask, since the party was never mentioned in the article.

Well Lo and Behold

It seems no MSM sources are mentioning their party affiliation. I wonder why? Could it be? Could there be a bias in the coverage of this?

Let us take a look at this article-Eight Dems Arrested in Bell, CA 'Corruption on Steroids' - Not a Single Mention of Party Affiliation From Media

Today, eight city council members were arrested in Bell, California for what Los Angeles County District Attorney labeled "corruption on steroids." Thus far, every major news outlet that has reported on the story has omitted the fact that all eight individuals arrested are Democrats.

These glaring omissions come only weeks after NewsBusters reported that of the 351 stories on the then-brewing controversy, 350 had omitted party affiliations, and one had mentioned they were Democrats only in apologizing for not doing so sooner.

ABC, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronicle all reported on the arrests today without mentioning party affiliations.

So out of 351 stories, 350 did not cover the fact they were ALL Democrats.

I wonder why that would be? Could not be liberal or Democrat bias could it?

I will let you decide.

That's why I call them SCM - short for state controlled media.

There's no way this close to an election where dems are already going to get hammered can the SCM allow even more negative news about dems to be disseminated.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Good catch, saltheart!!

I never thought about it till I saw this thread of yours.
Thanks for the info!!

73's,
Tom (KC5ILU)

reply to post by centurion1211


State controlled media is correct.

You do something the Presidency doesn't like, and you don't get questions answered in the newsroom, or the wonderful actor Obama to appear on any of your television shows.

This wasn't the same for Bush, almost all TV stations made fun of him and exposed lies in his organization.

This is when TPTB are kicking it into overdrive, if there was a decenting party, it might be enough to cause public outrage so it's not allowed. In my humble opinion.

Nice catch.....that many reports huh? Well, I'm sure someone from the dems will be along shortly to inform us why and how it wasn't their fault the media was still manipulating the masses. It shoud be a good read S&F for you my friend.

I'm from Canada, and I think partisan politics is a bunch of b.s. - an artificially engineered political division, and an over-simplification of complex and diverse political viewpoints - but I'll have a crack at it.

Because it's not relevant.

Also not mentioned were the racial affiliations of the politicians, their religious affiliations, marital status, and declared sexual orientations. I imagine a lot of those factors they probably had in common too.

A couple minutes of research using Google allowed me to establish that:
-California as a whole is considered a traditionally Democratic state
-a primary center of Democratic influence in California is Los Angeles county.
so it's not shocking that a most of the elected officials in Bell are Democrats.

It's not a story about eight heterosexual people who were implicated in a scandal, any more than it's a story about eight democrats. It's a story about eight individuals, comprising most of the elected officials in the town of Bell, California, who were implicated in a scandal. Period. It's not because they were Democrats, Californians, or ugly people (seen the mugshots?) that they colluded to defraud taxpayers. It's because they were corrupt.

reply to post by PocketRevolution


Hello PocketRevolution,

Being from Canada you should know how the party sentiments run, I guess?
They run really deep down here, especially because of the elections coming up and the loser Democratic
"comedian-in-charge".

"It's not because they were Democrats, Californians, or ugly people (seen the mugshots?) that they colluded to defraud taxpayers. It's because they were corrupt."

That too, but more importantly, it's because they were democrats!!! (period)

73's,
Tom (KC5ILU)

"Supposedly" the Repubs are about smaller government.

"Supposedly" the Dems are about helping the little guy.

As we all know, lately the Dems and Repubs are all about big government.

Now that the Dems are in control of two branches of the government, cannot have anyone pointing out their corruption now can we. The little people might wake up to the FACT that both parties are corrupt and basically the same right? The Dems were calling for heads back when Bush was in office. I basically agreed with their stances on the wars and the outright criminal behaviors like the Patriot Act and other corruption.

Now that the Dems are in control, why is the MSM not calling out the criminal behavior in this party?

Do you think that JUST MAYBE they do not want to show the problem with big government?

The smaller the government, the less chance that the criminal and corruption component is to affect us.

See what I am getting at?

Take your head out of your ass and realize there's no line drawn between parties. As one may be a corrupt Democrat, there is also a corrupt Republican. It's politics, and if you can't see through the bull# then you're just another pawn in an interchangeable power scheme.

reply to post by patent98310


Yeah, that is why I am neither, and everyone else should do the same. Independent, Constitution, Libertarian, Tea Party, etc etc etc.

Just have to keep pointing out the corruption in the party in power.

Do you have any corruption to point out? Well?

I will wait.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by patent98310

 

Yeah, that is why I am neither, and everyone else should do the same. Independent, Constitution, Libertarian, Tea Party, etc etc etc.

Just have to keep pointing out the corruption in the party in power.

Do you have any corruption to point out? Well?

I will wait.

I want to ask a very honest question. I'm not trying to bait or troll, but when Bush was President, did you have the same fervor? I am an Independent Libertarian also, I railed for years against Bush. Even judge Napolitano estimates Bush broke THOUSANDS of Constitutional Laws while in office. As a Libertarian , I would think this is important also.

I'm all for exposing corruption from both sides, and I personally LOVE watching it no matter what party did the corrupting.

But I just want to know if you personally took Bush to account when he was in office? And do we have your word that if the next President is a Repub, you will also take them to task just as much?

I know I will.

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


Yep, I had a discussion with my old bosses on Obama getting elected. I told them I hoped he would. I said he would do exactly the same thing as Bush if not more so.

I guess I was right. And yes, I have been railing against the Fed, Wars, 800+ foreign military bases, 130+ countries, social right infringements, etc etc etc.

I want Constitutional government from the feds. And if I do not like the state rules I live in, I will mover or change that state. Left Mass. and Cali. because of their idiotic policies. But I guess states that have been responsible are now going to be bailing out the thieves in those states now.

They were California politicians. Maybe the MSM just assumed that California politician was synonymous with Democrat?

Hey, its possible.

I have to ask how Fox News framed this story then. I know, being the highest rated cable news channel for some reason does not make it MSM to some people while CNN and MSNBC still are but as far as I can tell. Fox is the MSM and a lot of people that agree with so many of your threads seem to think that Fox is the only honest place to get the truth about anything. How did they frame it?

reply to post by Curiousisall


Have you seen any of my threads with Fox as a source?

I do not use the MSM except to see what parts of the news they are going to show the people.

Tell me, what do you think about 351 news sources and only one telling the party affiliation.

I suppose that is NOTHING at all right?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
"Supposedly" the Repubs are about smaller government.

"Supposedly" the Dems are about helping the little guy.

As we all know, lately the Dems and Repubs are all about big government.

Now that the Dems are in control of two branches of the government, cannot have anyone pointing out their corruption now can we. The little people might wake up to the FACT that both parties are corrupt and basically the same right? The Dems were calling for heads back when Bush was in office. I basically agreed with their stances on the wars and the outright criminal behaviors like the Patriot Act and other corruption.

Now that the Dems are in control, why is the MSM not calling out the criminal behavior in this party?

Do you think that JUST MAYBE they do not want to show the problem with big government?

The smaller the government, the less chance that the criminal and corruption component is to affect us.

See what I am getting at?

edit on 22-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)

I do, you gave all the neocons boners in this thread - you effectively made them feel as if the manipulation
they undergo is non existent, proxy agent in promotion of Neoconism.

That star up there is from me, you talked bad about the heroic GOP

I hope they torch those scum bags

reply to post by Janky Red


GOP, who is that? Oh the Neo Cons, I like to call them RINOS or Liberal lite with a flavor of war monger.

I say we get rid of the Repubs and Just implement the extreme right party.

Cause then we would always be right. You know how a Tea Partier turns left? Three rights.

You know sometimes I think I am wrong, then I realize I am right. Sorry, had to do some of my right jokes.

But of course then you have all the centrists singing.
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face, losing control, I'm all over
the place.
Clowns to left of me, jokers to the right, here am I stuck in the middle
with you.
Well, you started off with nothing and you're proud that you're a
self-made man.
And your friends they all come crawling, slap you on the back and say,
please, please.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower


Cause then we would always be right. You know how a Tea Partier turns left? Three rights.

We can finally agree on something. While a stupid Liberal would just simply turn left, the Tea Party will use tax dollars to take time to talk to God about it and have someone check the constitution a few times and still not get it correct, ask for directions and then toss them away in a vein attempt to show how anti-establishment they are, and eventually after taking 3 pointless right turns, they will get there. I knew you and I were not so different.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Have you seen any of my threads with Fox as a source?

I do not use the MSM except to see what parts of the news they are going to show the people.

Tell me, what do you think about 351 news sources and only one telling the party affiliation.

I suppose that is NOTHING at all right?

I did not ask what you routinely use as sources in your rant "threads." I am not following you on twitter either. I do not care. I asked how Fox covered this. You claimed to be mining sources. You claimed that out of 351 articles such and such. You made bold statements about how the MSM is covering this. Fox is part of the MSM so if you cannot answer how they covered it, doesn't your entire premise then become kind of a lie?

You tell me, were any of them Fox? See I still want an answer to my question as it relates to your claim about how the MSM is conspiring to NOT relate party affiliation in this story. I am simply looking for a little truth to your claim. Have any?