JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Crazy idea: Write to the paper and ask why they don't include the word
"Democrat" in articles about Spitzer. You're guessing the reasons. I suspect
they assume (correctly) that smart people already know Spitzer's party
affiliation, and smart people (who have a life) realize it doesn't matter at
all. But, you could find out for sure.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...45 8252&rfi=6



You claim to be a smart guy. When you read an article about a Governor
involved with prostitutes and the Governor's political party affiliation
is not provided in the article you can only come to one conclusion.

It's all about consistency and fairness. Either you provided the
political party affiliation for all elected officials or for no elected
officials. Providing political party affiliation for some and not others
shows bias.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Crazy idea: Write to the paper and ask why they don't include the word
"Democrat" in articles about Spitzer. You're guessing the reasons. I
suspect they assume (correctly) that smart people already know Spitzer's
party affiliation, and smart people (who have a life) realize it doesn't
matter at all. But, you could find out for sure.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...45 8252&rfi=6



You claim to be a smart guy. When you read an article about a Governor
involved with prostitutes and the Governor's political party affiliation
is not provided in the article you can only come to one conclusion.

It's all about consistency and fairness. Either you provided the political
party affiliation for all elected officials or for no elected officials.
Providing political party affiliation for some and not others shows bias.


Think about articles you're seeing about Spitzer TODAY. Not yesterday or the
day before. ***TODAY***

Now, tell me why mentioning his party affiliation TODAY adds any meaningful
content. I'm the journalism professor, you're the student. Why would you
include that information TODAY, knowing that it had already been mentioned
plenty in prior days.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Crazy idea: Write to the paper and ask why they don't include the word
"Democrat" in articles about Spitzer. You're guessing the reasons. I
suspect they assume (correctly) that smart people already know Spitzer's
party affiliation, and smart people (who have a life) realize it doesn't
matter at all. But, you could find out for sure.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...45 8252&rfi=6


You claim to be a smart guy. When you read an article about a Governor
involved with prostitutes and the Governor's political party affiliation
is not provided in the article you can only come to one conclusion.

It's all about consistency and fairness. Either you provided the political
party affiliation for all elected officials or for no elected officials.
Providing political party affiliation for some and not others shows bias.


Think about articles you're seeing about Spitzer TODAY. Not yesterday or the
day before. ***TODAY***

Now, tell me why mentioning his party affiliation TODAY adds any meaningful
content. I'm the journalism professor, you're the student. Why would you
include that information TODAY, knowing that it had already been mentioned
plenty in prior days.

Either you are consistent and you identify the political party
affiliation of everyone or no one. The fact that his name has been in
the news quite a bit lately and we can forgo identificaiton isn't in any
of the style guides.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Crazy idea: Write to the paper and ask why they don't include the word
"Democrat" in articles about Spitzer. You're guessing the reasons. I
suspect they assume (correctly) that smart people already know
Spitzer's party affiliation, and smart people (who have a life) realize
it doesn't matter at all. But, you could find out for sure.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...45 8252&rfi=6


You claim to be a smart guy. When you read an article about a Governor
involved with prostitutes and the Governor's political party affiliation
is not provided in the article you can only come to one conclusion.

It's all about consistency and fairness. Either you provided the
political party affiliation for all elected officials or for no elected
officials. Providing political party affiliation for some and not others
shows bias.


Think about articles you're seeing about Spitzer TODAY. Not yesterday or
the day before. ***TODAY***

Now, tell me why mentioning his party affiliation TODAY adds any
meaningful content. I'm the journalism professor, you're the student. Why
would you include that information TODAY, knowing that it had already
been mentioned plenty in prior days.

Either you are consistent and you identify the political party affiliation
of everyone or no one. The fact that his name has been in the news quite a
bit lately and we can forgo identificaiton isn't in any of the style
guides.


Which style guides are you referring to?

BAR wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Crazy idea: Write to the paper and ask why they don't include the
word "Democrat" in articles about Spitzer. You're guessing the
reasons. I suspect they assume (correctly) that smart people already
know Spitzer's party affiliation, and smart people (who have a life)
realize it doesn't matter at all. But, you could find out for sure.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...45 8252&rfi=6



You claim to be a smart guy. When you read an article about a
Governor involved with prostitutes and the Governor's political party
affiliation is not provided in the article you can only come to one
conclusion.

It's all about consistency and fairness. Either you provided the
political party affiliation for all elected officials or for no
elected officials. Providing political party affiliation for some and
not others shows bias.


Think about articles you're seeing about Spitzer TODAY. Not yesterday
or the day before. ***TODAY***

Now, tell me why mentioning his party affiliation TODAY adds any
meaningful content. I'm the journalism professor, you're the student.
Why would you include that information TODAY, knowing that it had
already been mentioned plenty in prior days.

Either you are consistent and you identify the political party
affiliation of everyone or no one. The fact that his name has been in
the news quite a bit lately and we can forgo identificaiton isn't in any
of the style guides.


Hmmm. "George W. Bush, the lying, incompetent and dumb *Republican*
POTUS..."

Yeah, that works.

On Mar 13, 12:36*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

. ..





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Crazy idea: Write to the paper and ask why they don't include the word
"Democrat" in articles about Spitzer. You're guessing the reasons. I
suspect they assume (correctly) that smart people already know Spitzer's
party affiliation, and smart people (who have a life) realize it doesn't
matter at all. But, you could find out for sure.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...2741&BRD=985&P...

You claim to be a smart guy. When you read an article about a Governor
involved with prostitutes and the Governor's political party affiliation
is not provided in the article you can only come to one conclusion.

It's all about consistency and fairness. Either you provided the political
party affiliation for all elected officials or for no elected officials.
Providing political party affiliation for some and not others shows bias..

Think about articles you're seeing about Spitzer TODAY. Not yesterday or the
day before. ***TODAY***

Now, tell me why mentioning his party affiliation TODAY adds any meaningful
content. I'm the journalism professor, you're the student. Why would you
include that information TODAY, knowing that it had already been mentioned
plenty in prior days.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would if we were discussing media bias, knowing that papers' history
as I do..

wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 12:36 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message

. ..





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Crazy idea: Write to the paper and ask why they don't include the word
"Democrat" in articles about Spitzer. You're guessing the reasons. I
suspect they assume (correctly) that smart people already know
Spitzer's
party affiliation, and smart people (who have a life) realize it
doesn't
matter at all. But, you could find out for sure.

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/...2741&BRD=985&P...

You claim to be a smart guy. When you read an article about a Governor
involved with prostitutes and the Governor's political party affiliation
is not provided in the article you can only come to one conclusion.

It's all about consistency and fairness. Either you provided the
political
party affiliation for all elected officials or for no elected officials.
Providing political party affiliation for some and not others shows
bias.

Think about articles you're seeing about Spitzer TODAY. Not yesterday or
the
day before. ***TODAY***

Now, tell me why mentioning his party affiliation TODAY adds any
meaningful
content. I'm the journalism professor, you're the student. Why would you
include that information TODAY, knowing that it had already been mentioned
plenty in prior days.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would if we were discussing media bias, knowing that papers' history
as I do..

=======================

I'm talking about writing an article, not discussing an article or a
newspaper.

Three days into a story that's been all over the media, what important
meaning or content is contributed by including "democrat" when describing
Spitzer?

Important words to focus on in that last question:

WHEN
DESCRIBING
SPITZER