Redstate

they choose to cover, but in what they choose to not cover.

This is a good example.

Sort of comparable to how the media all but ignored Al Gore's son's pot use and run ins with the law, but plastered the Bush girls alcohol use all over the papers.

You pose an interesting question.

As a guess as to why one story received significantly more coverage than the other, I would offer three ideas:

(1) The first story (Carter criticizing Bush) is a current story, related to a rather interesting of whether he'll run for Congress;

(2) the second story (Carter getting caught smoking marijuana in the Navy) happened 35 years ago, and as we saw with Bush's past drug use, the media generally tends to downplay coverage of drug use stories from decades ago.

(2) The media loves stories of conflict. And if they have a story involving a son of a past President critiquing a current President, well it's all the juicier.

Or perhaps:

1.) Bias

Ah yes, when in doubt .... bias!

he was born October 19, 1982. He was arrested for DUI on September 5, 2002. Legal drinking age is 21.

Want to try another excuse?

There are always doubts.  But Achems Razor should not be easily or reflexively dismissed.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

works best when there is one correct answer. Unfortunately, this is not such a case. Google Achem's Razor. Ocham's Razor. Ockham's Razor.

Thanks to both posts.  I believe it's a transliteration which are easy to stumble over.  Besides I stand with Jackson who wouldn't "trust anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word. (I paraphrase).

FIRST OF ALL, Al Gore, Jr. was not President "September 5, 2002," so any press his kid gets is merely a footnote of history (Speeding ticket during the campaign? Not that secksey either).

SECOND OF ALL, do you really want to have a spat over drunk driving "records"?

THIRD OF ALL, two h4wt girls drinking is SO much more interesting than anything anyone from Tennessee has ever done that I don't really know from where your Press-spective is coming.

FOURTH OF ALL, eh, that's all I got ;)

got much, eh?

So now the story is that underage drinking by a significant political figure, drinking which results in a DUI bust, isn't news?

Okay.

of the president, but not a former VP?

Got you, but I am not buying what you are trying to sell me.

political figure?

Why are you putting words into my posts? It's extremely clear what I'm saying.

And NO it's NOT news...it's gossip fit for scandal rags.  It does not affect my life.  Neither is the Bush girls' escapades.  "Two wrongs don't make a right." Why do you insist on dragging Gore III into the gutter where the media put the Bush twins?

You obviously don't know the first thing about selling newspapers.  Don't try to interject actual "facts" or importance into what is, after all, an entertainment medium.

Timeliness.

Proximity.

Casualties.

These are the things that sell newspapers.  It's not rocket science, it's theater.

Get mad at the "MSM" all you want.  DON'T get mad at me for explaining why they info-tain the way they info-tain.

to households I'll defer to your knowledge.

"Reading comprehension and Deflecting on the Web" by Streiff

Seriously.  Everytime I say something "unpopular," the insults fly.  I know you're capable of better, and I know you understand that you've been placed in a corner by your own bias and/or ignorance.  When I say some whacked-out stuff and attribute it to a conspiracy, and am called on it, I take it like a man.  I admit it.  Or I keep defending my point.  You have done none of these.

Results 1 - 10 of about 675,000 for occam's razor

Results 1 - 10 of about 482 for achem's razor

The man's very razor would suggest that the 482 didn't know how to spell his name and sounded it out semi-phonetically. But what do I know.

It is disappointing to see that the MSM isn't willing to immediately go into smear mode when talking about someone.  

How DARE they not immediately bring up a story from 35 years ago about smoking marijuana while in his early 20s?

Clearly biased.

Seems like you've answered your own question. Or was it rhetorical?

"So it only matters if you are the adult child of the president, but not a former VP?"

Yes.

Unless you believe that anyone cares about Al Gore anymore, or that he is somehow relevant. I suspect you don't. And neither does the media.

Which is why no one paid attention to Gore's son's story.

told me to grow a big beard. Keeps it sharper.

Before Jimmy Carter's son criticizes George W. Bush, he may want to compare Bush's presidency to his Dad's.

1. After four years in office, Carter left with an unemployment rate of 10%, more than twice the current rate (after 4+ years of Bush)
   
2. Carter left with an inflation rate of 13%, more than four times the current rate.
   
3. Carter left with mortgage interest rates at nearly 20%, pricing most home-buyers out of the market. Today, under Bush, home ownership is at a record high, and mortgage interest rates are still below 6%.
   
4. Today, we are concerned that Iran might develop nuclear weapons...thanks to Carter's undermining the Shah, which led to today's 8th-century thugocracy.
   
5. During Carter's term, 54 diplomats were held hostage, and Carter failed to negotiate their liberation for over a year. During Bush's term, 25 spy-plane pilots were held hostage by China, and Bush negotiated their liberation within three weeks.

Like father, like son? Hopefully, we won't have to find out!

was even younger, and the speeding while stoned and the dope bust were cute as well. But nobody paid as much attention becuz algore is a dim and a loser.

It would be like inflating a floating pig for a parade: no matter how much it is puffed up, it is still a pig full of hotair.

Jimmuh's boy, the doper tossed out of the Navy will be a great leader for the modern dem party.

I hope they pour tons of resources into him.

Hey, I said thanks.  I appreciate the FYI.  This kinda stuff (how's that for erudition) can really get in the way of effective communication. I've taught both African and Asian history at the college level and have struggled with which of the competeing spelling conventions to employ.  According to the African and Asian (native) students I've talked to, none of them really correctly convey the sound. We do what we can. If Occam communicates better than Occam it is!

(Especially statistics based on Google hits)

William of Ockham's name comes from the town of Ockham in Surrey.

with a deaf student in my section.

The interpreter wasn't particularly knowledgeable about organic chemistry, so she would attempt to sign a phonetic version of what I said. But the student had a heck of a time correlating what the written text said with what her translator said.

I guess her experiences with the phonetic equivalence between X and Z wasn't extensive. Fortunately, when I saw the interpreter sign a Z while I was talking about Xylene, I realized the mistake. Apparently the student had been wondering just what the heck Zylene was for quite a while. Context doesn't help much when you are trying to decipher the name of a chemical.

I always wondered if deaf people can get an idea of the phonetic relationships in our language just based on the misspellings we often make.

Yes, but don't forget that Noam Chomsky has written many books in his day. That sort of discredits books a bit, I guess.

Somehow I get the impression this wouldn't be the best place to ask for a book review.

:P

Imagine what it would feel like to put your head in a garbage disposal unit.

That's what it's like to read a Noam Chomsky book.

As of September 2002, Al Gore was no longer a significant political figure.  At least not in the way George Bush was.  Mujadaddy is right about this.  

One of my favorite things to do is to read 2-3  recommended books and the recommender reads 2-3 that I recommend and then come back in a month and comparer impressions. I've done this a lot with liberal friends after I had my conservative epiphany in 6/2001.

wanna do it? If so, tell me the 3 books that have made the biggest impact on your world view that justifies yout political syance at this time, and I will reciprocate and get back with you in 30 days.

arrest for DUI and underage in not noteworthy but garden variety underage drinking is. And the subsequent marijuana bust in Bethesda? Also not newsworthy presumably.

Just nice to know what the standards are out there.

"potential felony arrest"

"garden variety underage drinking"

It's not like there's been a coverup or a sealing of records in Gore III's case --- IT'S ON FRIKKIN' WIKIPEDIA, F.F.S.!!!!

For someone who, presumably, rails against the bias of the MSM and who, presumably, is lucky enough to be smart enough to get his news from a wide variety of other sources, you sure are complaining alot.

There IS bias in news coverage.  They teach that the FIRST WEEK in J-school.  It's called "framing."  Since one can't get twelve thousand words on every subject into a newspaper (the original news source for much of history), decisions have to be made.  Former Vice President's son's legal troubles? Pretty interesting stuff, but CURRENT President's daughters' legal troubles will be on a page MUCH closer to the front of the paper.  As I said in another reply in this diary, "It's not rocket science.  It's theater."

The internet & weblogs have vastly increased the "number of pages" that can be devoted to stories of all kinds.  We are lucky to have them.  EVENTUALLY, one hopes, the MSM will respond with more responsive, and responsible, coverage.  Don't hold your breath---it could take years.

I see you didn't bother responding to "/golfclap."

Great story.

I was giving a sermon once through two translators in Nigeria when I head the second translator say "baptize," an ecclesiastical term transliterated but one I hadn't used.  I turned to him surprised at what he had said. To which he replied (through the first translator), "I knew where you were going."  Communication is a wonderful thing.

Thanks.  That helps. But did he eat Peking duck with Wade-Giles on his visit to Beijing to meet Mao...just Mao.

I posted his wrong once but wanted to get it to bartman:

Thanks.  That helps. But did he eat Peking duck with Wade-Giles on his visit to Beijing to meet Mao...just Mao.

That's a cool idea.

Give me a day or so to think about what couple of books I'd recommend.

Here's what I got.  My search string was "carter drug use navy discharge".  I count 154,000 hits.

Try googling off the search page rather than the news page.  Have fun.

But I don't think they will convince you.

After spending the last day or so thinking about why I am a liberal (and actually my views are quite a bit more nuanced than the simple label "liberal" describes) I have come to the conclusion that it's more about how I choose to interpret what's around me based on my life experiences, than reading a specific book. In fact, I have been labled as a conservative on DKos specifcally because I have posted quotes from two of these three books.

A year ago, I spoke to a Democrat who was manning a booth at a local festival. (I'm in a red county in Oregon) I said I was suprised to see that there even are any Democrats in my town. She said that enrollment in the party had been going up quite a bit lately, and Democrats were almost equal to Republicans in registered voters at this point. I mentioned that I was considering becoming a Democrat because many of my views are fairly liberal, and I was extremely concerned about the actions of the Republican party. But I finally left her, pointing out that "if the Republicans actually stood for the things they claim to stand for, I'd probably be a Republican." She didn't take kindly to that comment, although I would think that it should stand out as an example of how Democrats should be focusing themselves.

Anyway, on to my three books:

#1 - The very first book of the New Testament. The Gospel According to Matthew. (Particularly The Beatitudes in Chapter 5.) When I was in high school, back in the 1980's, I was seriously considering becoming a Jesuit Priest. Although I don't attend Church regularly anymore because I have become disillusioned with the political actions of the American Bishops, in contradiction to Pope John Paul II's insistence on a broad basis for his "Culture of Life," I still consider myself a very spiritual person, and I read my Bible regularly. I am saddened by the great number of Christians in our nation who would seem to ignore the entire fifth chaper of Matthew, and the majority of Jesus' teachings in favor of Old Testament vengeance and submission to authority. I believe that many preachers in modern America need to heed the words of Jesus to the Pharisees:

"You hypocrites! How accurately did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said:

'This people pays me lip service but their heart is far from me.

They do me empty reverence, making dogmas out of human precepts.'"

#2 - My second book isn't particularly controversial. (except among neo-Nazis perhaps.) It is "Man's Search for Meaning" written by Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl. I chose it because along with its message about the purpose of life, and the importance of living each day regardless of how bleak things may become, he provides the ultimate example that there are good people and evil people in every group. To quote from it:

"It is apparent that the mere knowledge that a man was either a camp guard or a prisoner tells us almost nothing. Human kindness can be found in all groups, even those which as a whole it would be easy to condemn. The boundaries between groups overlapped and we must not try to simplify matters by saying that these men were angels and those were devils. Certainly, it was a consideralbe achievement for a guard or foreman to be kind to the prisoners in spite of all the camp's influences, and, on the other hand, the baseness of a prisoner who treated his own companions badly was exceptionally contemptible. Obviously the prinsoners found the lack of character in such men especially upsetting, while they were profoundly moved by the smallest kindness received from any of the guards. I remember how one day a foreman secretly gave me a piece of bread which I knew he must have saved from his breakfast ration. It was far more than the piece of bread which moved me to tears at that time. It was the human 'something' which this man also gave to me -- the word and look which accompanied the gift."

#3 - My third book is the one which has most marked me as a conservative by those who chose to repond to my quotes posted on DKos. It is "On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. This book is the reason I strongly support the troops, but have been strongly opposed to the war in Iraq since before it began. For the majority of human beings, the act of killing another human being at close range is so repulsive and disturbing that they cannot bring themselves to do it. Even to defend themselves or their families from murder. Even to kill an enemy who is shooting at them. Apparently, the most common reaction of an infantry soldier after making his first personal kill is to vomit. Soldiers who have killed state that killing another man is like sex. If you haven't done it, then you might think you know what it's like, but you don't. And those who do know what it's really like don't talk about it. Modern armies teach their soldiers to kill as a reflexive action, to overcome their instinctive reluctance to kill. And soldiers who have killed generally spend the rest of their lives trying to rationalize it and come to peace with it. So even though "only" 2000 American soliders have died in Iraq, and "only" 10,000 have been seriously wounded (not sure about the 10,000 number, just a guess) the number who will spend the rest of their lives trying to convince themselves that they are not evil even though they have killed another human being is a toll which is enormously higher, and is considered by virtually no-one except for military psychiatrists, VA counselors, and other soldiers who are still fighting the same inner battle.

So, that's my list. Probably not what most people would expect a self-described "liberal" to provide as his three most important literary sources of inspiration, but then again, one of the reasons I wanted to come here is because I think there are lots of misconceptions about what conservatives and liberals really believe nowdays. It seems that both sides of the isle spend quite a bit of their time rallying the troops against caricatures, rather than dealing with reality.

I look forward to seeing what your choices are.

I know you didn't start it but now it has escalated.

If you want to discuss this - and there is no reason you shouldn't -, go to a diary.

Wasn't sure if it was appropriate for a diary.

Thanks for the guidance

Why would he do a general google search (which turns up results on the first page of your search from such sources as marijuana.com/420/) when discussing which news outlets chose to run particular news stories?

More to the point though, it doesn't change the results whether you compare apples to apples on the news search as Nick did, or oranges to oranges on a general search as you're suggesting should be done.

Google returns approximately 3,330,000 hits for a Carter (Son OR Jack) (attacks OR criticises OR criticizes OR  "Aims Barbs at") Bush search.  Your search returned 154,000.

Nick's comparison of results from the news search as given in the diary entry: 43 hits vs. 2 hits, or about a 22:1 ratio.  

Comparison of the general search results that you suggest is more appropriate: 3,330,000 hits vs. 154,000 hits.  Again, about a 22:1 ratio.

The only way you get the bias the disappear is by using your technique of comparing apples to oranges.

I had not fully appreciated the hypocrisy of this diary until the subject of "googling" was raised.

Did any of you BOTHER to investigate that the marijuana admission is raised in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE "Criticism" STORIES???? In the 8th paragraph of the AP story.

Jeez, people.

ALSO, "apples and oranges" MATTERS A LOT with Google.  You can type in ANYTHING into Google--but it doesn't mean you'll get results, especially in their "news" tab. Jack Carter navy drug only returns 150 results in News, even though EVERY SINGLE ONE of the stories mentions all those words.

Your quibble is with HOW the story is written, NOT the facts included in it.

He would do a general google search if he was both interested and motivated in finding out if, in fact, the story of Carter's dismissal from the Navy had been reported in more than a trivial number of newspapers.  If he just wanted to claim that the damned MSM was at its dastardly work again, he might stop with the google news search, and with the specific search string he used.

Some folks have been known to go so far as to invest $3.00 in a Lexis/Nexis search.  But, if you don't want to go that far, the general Google search would do the trick.

The question here, of course, is not the relative length of relevant, or not relevant, search hits you get from any particular query on a particular search engine.  The question is whether public news media have suppressed the story of Carter's drug use.  

In fact, they have not.

The question here, of course, is not the relative length of relevant, or not relevant, search hits you get from any particular query on a particular search engine.  The question is whether public news media have suppressed the story of Carter's drug use.  

The question was the relative prevalence of two Jack Carter stories, one with a "criticized Bush" slant and one without.  Or as Nick phrased it, As we all know, Associated Press stories are available to virtually every news outlet in the country. Whether any particular story makes it into your local newspaper is a local decision made by local editors.

Some folks have been known to go so far as to invest $3.00 in a Lexis/Nexis search.  But, if you don't want to go that far, the general Google search would do the trick.

And the general Google search did do the trick to also support Nick's observation. As I demonstrated, regardless of whether you do a general google search, or restrict it to just the news search that Nick did, the "Jack Carter criticizes Bush" story got about 22 times as much play as the non-Bush-critical "Jack Carter was dismissed from the Navy for drug use" story did.

To repeat for the final time: The google results were 43 : 2 in the news stories search, and 3,330,000 : 154,000 in the general search.  It's a roughly 22:1 ratio of play regardless of which search you use.

Since you refuse to accept the results from the very method of comparison you proposed (a general google search) because they agree with Nick's initial observation and refute yours, I don't see the point in discussing the matter further with you.

First, the person with the agenda here is Nick.  

Nick claims that, through some nefarious process, the story of Carter's drug use has been suppressed by public media outlets.  As evidence, he shows that his Google News search turned up a generous handful of articles citing Carter's criticism of Bush, and only two citing his drug use.  Q.E.D!!

Basically, I say BS.  It took me all of ten seconds to find lots of articles citing Carters drug use.  Nick, on this particular topic, is full of crap.

To your point, as I mentioned above, the relative number of "hits" retrieved by a given search string on a given search engine has nothing to do with the issue.  If there is any phenomenon on God's green earth that is more devoid of meaningful statistical relevance than the size of the list of hits from a Google search, I don't know what it is.  The only point in my citing 154,000 in my post was to indicate that the number was more than two.  If you enjoy playing with your calculator, by all means do the comparisons, but they don't mean anything.

Nick says public news media didn't cover Carter's drug use.  He's wrong.  That's my point.

I don't see the point in discussing the matter further with you

That's great, then I expect this will be the end of it.