All before the Press learned about it.

No hypocrisy here.

Vitter called on Clinton to resign in light of the distraction his affairs were causing. He then proceeded to repeatedly cheat on his wife. When caught, he made the same argument Clinton did. Not the most clear-cut case of hypocrisy, but that’s how it was reported.

Correct me if I am wrong… but Conservatives believe in obeying the laws and working to change the laws we disagree with instead of ignoring/breaking laws we disagree with. So I think it is fair to say Conservatives oppose breaking the law and those who break the law. Therefore Ms. Biden would fall into the terrorist catagory of your analogy instead of the innocent catagory. Which sort of null and voids your example in my humble opinion.

As I mentioned before, even if her daddy wasn’t the VPOTUS, there is a good chance that this would be an investigative story on the evening news or in the local paper on how a social worker was caught and arrested for using drugs. How she was suspended or fired for doing drugs and how she was even hired with her drug, alcohol abuse and arrest record. She is a liability for her department. It is a legitimate news piece in of itself due to the ironic/hypocritical nature of the situation. The fact that her bosses, the authorities and the media are turning a blind eye to the situation b/c of who her daddy is adds a whole different layer to the story. It shouldn’t be ignored because of who her father is.

The fact remains that she is a grown adult woman. She decided to break the law knowing that one of the risks was being caught. She knew that if she was caught, it would be splashed in the media. Every family member of a politican knows that this is a fact of their life. It is just the way the world works. We may not like it. We may even resent it at times. But we can’t change human nature. We can only control our own actions and words. So if we don’t want to be in the news, we don’t do anything illegal, unethical or scandalous. It is that simple.

I agree that minors or dependents of politicans are off limits. I agree that family members who are innocent and victims of straight out lies and fabrications should never have to be submitted to that ordeal. ( And thankfully there are laws that provide ways and means to protect families and enable them to fight back.) I agree that it those situations are unfair and shameful. But Ms. Biden is neither a child or innocent.

Too bad they sit down when it comes to doing right.

great post man

Many Dems are for “green” energy, but make almost no effort to reduce his/her own energy consumption (Al Gore comes to mind).

Some Dems have been caught saying racial/sexual slurs, even though they’re the party of “tolerance” (Joe Biden comes to mind).

Many Dems rail on class warfare, but give very little to charity (Barack Obama comes to mind).

Many Dems claim that their patriotism is unassailable, but have questionable incidents in their pasts that contradict this assertion (Bill Clinton comes to mind).

So don’t tell me that it’s just Repubs who have problems w/hypocrisy.

I’m with you guys on that when Republicans attack, they should draw blood rather than act like Victorian-era gentlemen; heck, I think that Machiavelli’s The Prince should be required reading for Republican pols. However, we need to make sure that we’re making the right people bleed, and not wasting our time and effort on a tactic that is roundly disapproved of.

Besides that, I have a problem with going on a vendetta against the Dems: this sets a bad precedent which, historically, hasn’t ended well for either side.

“Does it seem the families and private lives of conservatives are more thoroughly investigated than the left’s? Maybe, anecdotely, although I’m not sure how this could be proven outside of conjecture.”

Not sure how it could be proven? Well, given that there are a finite number of minutes in each broadcast day and given that we can count the minutes devoted to investigations….

BTW, it has been proven by the minute counting method, and yes, the study confirmed what any thinking and attentive follower of politics in the media already knew, and no, I’m not going to google for you.

Then you say”

“I imagine a quantitative study of media bias in this realm could only yield spurious findings as one would have a hard time accessing the number of stories that go unreported.”

Stop imagining and get real. What matters is what is reported.

You continue:

“Conservatives are probably more likely to be found explicitly guilty of hypocrisy than liberals on these vices in the youtube era. - Ritter and Craig come to mind - and it is this type of conflict that the media is systematically more likely to report with no concern for partisan labels.

Pure illogical babble. Probably more likely? why? You don’t say.
Explicitly? What does that qualifier add? Not a damn thing.
YouTube era? as if
“This type” of “conflict”? meaningless dribble
No concern for partisan labels? Are you a newly arrived immigrant from Belgian or an American under the age of 24?

Look, I was sentient during the 2008 campaign. I’m not suggesting bias does not exist, only that we should make more sophisticated arguments than trading stories in an echo chamber about Chris Matthews and John Edwards. Contributors on this website frequently make very strong claims on a media bias against conservatives. How can we prove this? Are there really that many Democratic indiscretions that go overlooked that only Republicans get nailed on? The note on party labels next to names is on the right track, but all and all this is very difficult to ascertain for reasons I explained earlier and probably renders any strong claims moot.

In a hypothetical quantitative study of media bias that say examines national media saturation from WaPo, NYT, LA Times and Chi. Trib, that counts and categorizes the number of stories reported on Democrat/Republican infidelities/family misadventures, should we control for party in power, prominence/position of offender, a ’sensationalist’ aspect, closeness to an election, spousal reaction, belated confession? Or should we look at local coverage? I could go on and on. Until proven otherwise, it is plausible that the content of the event is more important than the party label in determining the amount of coverage. Perhaps Democrats are simply better at damage control? Who knows? This seems like something that should have already been studied?

For the record: I’m no troll. I’ve lurked this site since the ‘04 election and I used to post sporadically under the handle “Balfour Conservative” until a combination of an expired college email and the Redstate 3.0 compelled me to switch.

Islamic Terrorists kidnap aid workers and journalists, hold them for ransom, behead them, and show videos of the beheadings on television. We are opposed to the terrorists. We need to get some Islamic innocents and videotape them as we behead them.

That’s your logical defense of an attack on Beiden’s daughter.

Shame on you!

WE CAN’T BEAT THEM BY BECOMING THEM.

Call to account any and all of their elected or appointed officials. LEAVE THEIR FAMILIES ALONE!

How stupid.

The weakness of your argument is that it must rely on the notion that Republican misdeeds are so much more “sensational” than those of Democrats. That’s the only way to explain the front page treatment Republican “scandals” get while Democrats happily get their stories relegated to page A32 with any references to their partisan affiliation neatly excised.

As for your Spitzer mention … oh please.

Did you forget the great pains practically all of the major outlets of the MSM took to avoid reporting on the Edwards story until the National Enquirer(!) made them look like open shills?

I honestly think you should go sell your BS elsewhere.

The topic of the thread pertained to why the media is more prone to devote more column lines and bandwidth to the misdeeds of conservatives to liberals. I never suggested it was a “good” reason, only a possible one that seems credible given other patterns of coverage. There have been many high profile cases of indecent behavior by conservatives in recent years that, using media logic, deserved attention for their novelty or sensationalism - D.C. Madam scandal, Craig, Senate pages. How many Republicans have admitted affairs or indiscretions and received a relative pass from the media? You don’t know that because they weren’t reported,/underreported, and absent any study investigating this subject, it seems much of the anger directed against the media in this realm is grounded without empirical evidence as proof of a more general suspicion of a systematic hostility to the right from the MSM.

Where’s the hypocrisy here?

It’s not a very good reason for the media to ignore Democratic scandals and misbehavior (or routinely fail to note that Senator or Congressman X is a Democrat if they do report it), but it’s at least somewhat … logical.

Thanks for clearing that up.