Can you spot the difference?
by David Benzion · 10/11/2005 8:52 amBoth of these stories appeared in today’s Houston Chronicle.
Both are written by the Associated Press.
Both reveal unflattering but not especially unique human behavior by a Texas politician.
Can you spot the difference?
# 1 Woodlands lawmaker arrested on DUI charge
A Republican congressman from The Woodlands has been arrested and charged with driving under the influence in South Dakota.
A state trooper pulled over U.S. Rep Kevin Brady, 50, Friday night for a problem with the taillights of his vehicle, Clay County Sheriff Andy Howe said.
It was homecoming weekend at the University of South Dakota, so officers were on the alert for driving violations including manning sobriety checkpoints, Howe said.
Brady is a graduate of the University of South Dakota.
Authorities are waiting for results of a blood test to determine Brady’s blood-alcohol level at the time of the arrest. The legal limit in South Dakota is 0.08.
If convicted of the misdemeanor charge, Brady faces up to $1,000 fine and a year in jail. A typical penalty for a first offense is $300 to $400, Howe said.
Brady was in East Texas Monday and could not be reached for comment, said Sarah Stephens, a spokeswoman for Brady.
Brady attended meetings with residents in Jasper, Newton, Deweyville and Buna on Monday to discuss hurricane recovery. He plans to visit Orange, Vidor, Kountze and Woodville today.
# 2 Gun in briefcase trips up McAllen senator at airport
A South Texas lawmaker detained by police after bringing a handgun through an airport metal detector said Monday he made a mistake and that he had a permit to carry the weapon.
Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-McAllen, was found with a 9 mm handgun in his briefcase as he passed through security at Miller International Aiport in McAllen, Harlingen television station KGBT reported. Airport security discovered the weapon and Hinojosa was taken to the McAllen Police Department before being released.
"I made a mistake in rushing to the airport and not checking my briefcase prior to entering the McAllen Miller International Airport," Hinojosa said in a statement. "The airport security at McAllen Miller International was doing their job."
Hinojosa said police verified his concealed handgun permit, identity and traced the weapon before releasing him.
McAllen police and a woman answering the phone at the airport would not comment when contacted by The Associated Press late Monday.
Did you see it? Can you spot the difference?
If so, tell us what you think it was in comments.
(As an aside, I want to note that I consider the DUI offense more serious than the handgun incident, since the former puts innocent members of the public at risk.)
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
28 Responses to “Can you spot the difference?”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Well, it seems interesting that Brady’s party affiliation was pointed out much more prominently than Hinojosa’s. In addition, Hinojosa was actually quoted for his article - you got to hear a bit of his side of the story, something conspicuously absent in the first article.
Having been rear-ended by a drunk driver with my then 2 year old son in the car, I’d have to agree with your aside, David.
Anyway, it is interesting that this bias comes from the AP in this case, and not the Crumbicle (not that they haven’t been guilty of similar slants in the past).
I believe you hear more of Hinojosa’s story because he was available for comment. According to the article, attempts to contact Brady for his side were unsuccessful.
And I’m not sure that the relative prominence of party affiliation is really a definitive indicator of bias, particularly if different individuals wrote the two stories.
“A Republican Congressman from the Woodlands” vs. “A South Texas Lawmaker”.
Oh, those evil right-wing Republicans and their leader ChimpBushitler!
The differences that I see are that one politician, Hinojosa, spoke with the Chronicle and the other, Brady, could not be reached for comment. There is also the matter of your aside, which, truthfully, should answer your own question as to the differences in the stories. There is enough bias in the media as it is without drawing attention to stories where it isn’t present. Ever hear of the boy that cried “wolf”?
“Ever hear of the boy that cried “wolf”?”
Yup, several of them recently screaming racism. Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Jesse Jackson, Kanye West, Louis Farrakhan … the list goes on and on. David’s aside was just that - an aside. It has nothing to do with the media bias inherent in the MSM.
Benzion,
I don’t see it. Enlighten us.
The Republican’s blood alcohol level is not available, so the charge is pending; there is no proof that he was drunk; he was not pulled over for swerving or driving erratically, but for a tail light violation. (I do agree, though, that if he was drunk, he should be publicly disgraced). However, the article assumes he is, and states the time he may be sentenced to.
The Democrat was found with a smoking gun (sorry), as there was a concealed weapon found on his person while in an airport. Yet he was released from the police station; no word on if he will be charged with any crime.
The Republican was “arrested”, the Democrat merely “detained”
Just my thoughts
Marianne
The thing that stood out the most to me was that it was stated that the Republican may do jail time. Nothing was said about the Democrat doing any jail time nor would he be punished in any way shape or form.
The ONLY time the Democrat was mentioned was with ONE letter.. “D” And that’s not even until the second paragraph of the article. For the Republican, not only is it spelled out, but it’s the SECOND word of the entire article.
Why do you think the MSM always puts Rep. for representative…so the ignorant and uninformed public (who still vote…SCARY!) would think it was a Republican. Since he is a Senator, they couldn’t do that for this article.
Republican: made mistake, assumed guilty
Democrat: made mistake, assumed innocent
Possible DUI: string him up!
Definite gun through airport security screening: Oh, it was a mistake, no problem, don’t do anything to him, he had his permit after all.
You mean a demoncrat believes you should be able to carry a gun? Or is it only demoncratic politicians that get to do that? Personally, I think that if you have a CCH you oughtta be able to carry on the plane. What would have happened on 9/11 if a couple CCH permit holders had thier guns with them on the plane? I’d be willing to bet there’d be a couple buildings still standing in Manhattan now….
BTW, did Hinojosa get his gun back? A couple of years ago I forgot I had my pocket knife in my pocket as I approached the magnetometer, voluntarily TOLD the screener I had it and forgot to put in my baggage. they took it, filled out a report, and I never saw the knife again (that sux too, it was a good knife…), but I certainly got a nasty letter from the TSA about it.
#6: The people you point out as crying “wolf” over racism (Jackson, Farrakhan (is this guy a nut or what?), Pelosi, etc…) are just as wrong as those conservatives who always see media bias in any and everything that is printed, televised, broadcasted, etc… This belief is the conservative equivalent of “victimization”, a trait that they decry in others when espoused.
People need to wake up and start seeing themselves as Americans first with party affiliation a far distant second.
Both perps went downtown, one was arrested and the other was “taken” to the Police department. Can you guess which is which? Wouldn’t both have been arrested?
#13 - I don’t see it as crying ‘victim’ as much as pointing out biases in the coverage (something eminently fair, in my opinion). I don’t feel victimized by the differences in the articles, but I certainly see evidence of differing treatment of what certainly is a major screw-up on the part of both men.
Is it really bias in coverage if two different people wrote the articles? Or is it just a difference in writing styles? Drawing conclusions based on snippits from just two articles is invariably going to be a flawed undertaking.
Reminds me of a couple snippits I saw after Katrina hit.
One, a white couple carrying backpacks full of food. Caption: “A couple wades through the water after finding some…”
Second, a black couple, carrying backpacks full of food. Caption: “A couple wades through the water after looting…”
#15 Exactly. What we should be focusing on is the fact that two of our elected representatives had run-ins with the law over the weekend. Both were wrong (admittedly Brady moreso than Hinojosa given Brady’s statement today) and the fact that the respective stories were written with a different style should not be used as an example of a media bias. Like I stated earlier, there are enough legitimate examples to cite without seeing it in every instance; it only weakens your argument.
#13 - I don’t feel victimized by media bias. It is what it is. But saying the bias doesn’t exist is just plain wrong. Of course there’s media bias. Fox News is biased to the right. Thank God, because ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, et al are biased left. You have to be smart enough to filter through the bias. It’s not about being a victim. There are victims of racism and I’m sure it happens more than any white person will ever know. But having some yahoo say Bush hates black people (West) or the government blew up the levees in black parts of town to save the white neighborhoods (Farrakhan) or whine about hurricanes not having afro-centric names (Sheila Jackson Lee) is terribly harmful in the struggle to eliminate true racism. I agree we should all be Americans first. But having public figures stand up and paint white Americans as racist is counter-productive.
#17 - The bias present in the articles may not be egregious, but it is certainly there, and you have to be aware of it when reading these things (unless you don’t want to form your own opinions). It’s that way with everything - you gotta sort the wheat from the chaff when you’re looking at the data, so to speak…
Besides, it DOES sort of look when you hold the articles up side by side as if the gun in the airport, no matter how much the holder had a CHL, is somehow positioned to be OK.
#18 Bias exists in all things human, especially when it comes to the media. Take for example the White House paying conservative commentators, with tax dollars no less, to promote administration policies (Mr. Williams). That is certainly bias. It also exists, whether on the right or the left, in our media coverage as long as that coverage is based on human observation. My position has never been that the bias doesn’t exist, but that the paranoid obsession with it retards ones growth as an objective observer (which we all should strive to be). It’s no different than the “black” leaders constant reference to how “white” people keep them down. No intelligent person can state that racism doesn’t exist, but by constantly crying racism, these leaders (for lack of a better term) actually hurt their cause when it truly is present because people tend to tune them out. Same goes with the media bias angle touted by conservatives. Recognize and transcend it.
#20 - We agree almost completely - except one key point: I don’t believe that conservatives have a “paranoid obsession” with media bias. They are not saying they’re being victimized by bias, they’re just saying it exists and we should recognize it. (By the way, commentators like Armstrong Williams don’t purport to be “neutral” in any fashion; that’s a big difference from Dan Rather trying to sway an election with false documents. That in no way excuses the use of tax dollars to promote administration policies though). Racism, on the other hand, when claimed without basis, has an enormous effect on those who are truly the victims of racism.
#20 is correct. Rush, Hannity, et. al. NEVER EVER claim to be un-bias. They tell everyone they are conservative and clearly state that is how they are viewing and interpreting everything. Most ALL of the MSM tells everyone they are 100% completely UN-biased, when they are not.
And it’s not just the news they DO report and how they report it, but the news the choose NOT to report, that also makes them bias.
Wonders never cease.
Consenting adults all lathered up over this?
Trifling inconsequentialities.
There’s a war on, don’t you know…
The tone of the original post was pretty tounge-in-cheek - we’re just (mostly)having a little fun with it…
okay….whatever you say boss.
doc, that’s funny! Attempting to influence a presidential election with forged documents is a trifling inconsequentiality? Whatever you say doc.
Benzion,
Give us your answer! It’s like taking a test and waiting for the outcome. All of these ideas about what it is. Are they right? Are they wrong?
The difference is simple. The media is Democrat and so by putting down a Republican, makes them feel accomplished.