Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
July 5, 2007
POLITICS: No Bias Here

The AP headline on this Washington Post story?

Romney Criticized for Hotel Pornography

The story? Romney was on the board of directors of a hotel chain, Marriott, and failed to stop the chain's sale of in-room pay-per-view pornographic movies, a lucrative business for the chain.

Now, the story itself is a pretty weak critique; as Romney responds in defending the charge of hypocrisy in his larger critique of porn:

I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity.

Either way, however, the AP headline makes it sound like he got caught watching dirty movies in his hotel room. Nobody could think that's a fair headline.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:23 PM | Politics 2008 | Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

Yup. Sounds more like a Republican dirty trick. Uh, Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth?"

Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, I am please to introduce Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer. Don't complain Karl. You just came first.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at July 5, 2007 8:27 PM

Shoot, by AP standards (cf Iraq War coverage) that's a puff piece. I'm surprised they didn't work the dog and the flying poop into the same headline to make it sound really kinky.

Posted by: Watchman at July 5, 2007 9:29 PM

A mormon who spends ten million of his own dollars kissing up to the Christian right leaves himself open to this charge -- and as a Massachusetts resident (who voted for the absentee governor); I find that sight objectionable.

Posted by: Patrick at July 5, 2007 9:35 PM

This is what happens to you when you set your self up as a "morality" standard bearer and a GOP Inc. pres. candidate. I don't feel the least bit sorry for him. Sorry pal, you might as well have asked them to do it.

Posted by: jim at July 5, 2007 11:18 PM

The other commenters beat me to it, but isn't there a story about chickens and roosting?

Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2007 7:03 AM

The difference, of course, is that the AP is supposedly a neutral reporter of the news, not part of somebody's spin machine.

Posted by: Jeff A at July 6, 2007 8:57 AM

You are quite correct Crank. The headline is unfair. On the other hand, had he tried and succeeded at banning porno movies from the hotel chain, the MSM would be after him for imposing his morality on the rest of us. No way for Romney to come out on top in the Press in this instance.

Posted by: feeblemind at July 6, 2007 9:10 AM

RE: 'No way for Romney to come out on top in the Press in this instance.'

How about if he condoned the hotel porn - a valid business decision; but did not invite 60 minutes into his home to filim him praying to Jesus Christ; did not prohibit stem cell research in Massachusetts; did not preen constantly about his family values; did not sensationalize the debate over gay marriage; did not splash millions around these sleazy Jerry Falwell type institutions trying to woo their support.

That would be an ok way to come out, no?

Posted by: Patrick at July 6, 2007 9:21 AM

I linked to the report.What's inaccurate about the headline?

Posted by: AnonE.Mouse at July 6, 2007 9:28 AM

1. I'm not saying the story is unfair, just that when you actually think about it - rather than just giving it a knee-jerk reaction - it's an awfully weak criticism. What it has to do with stem cells or same-sex marriage is beyond me.

2. As to the headline, I guess some of you really do subscribe to the idea that pretty much anything is fair game in attacking a social conservative. If the headline was "Romney criticized on porn sales by hotel" or something, that would be one thing. But if you buy the idea that the AP is ssupposed to be something other than an organ for attacking conservatives, you'd want the headline to not misleadingly suggest that the story is about Romney's personal consumption of porn, since that is not at all what the actual facts are.

Posted by: The Crank at July 6, 2007 9:48 AM

Which would be worse - 'consuming' a little pornography of peddling it in mass quantities? I think the headline is neutral or favorable to Willard.

As to what stem cells and same sex marriage have to do with Willard peddling pornography - only that they further exemplify his hypocrisy.

To the chagrin of his supposed cause -- Mitt chose to hold large demonstrations on the statehouse steps against gay marriage a la Governor Faubus rather than reach a workable solution before the issue reached the Courts. And as far as stem cell research goes, it didn't seem to bother him until well into his third year in office, long after he had given up accomplishing anything in Massachusetts.

Posted by: Patrick at July 6, 2007 10:17 AM

He obviously was for spanktravision before he was against it.

I agree, the headline could be read two ways and is therefore sloppy (or perhaps intentionally so, who knows)...but getting panties in a wad about it, don't see it. Agree with most of the posters draw these attacks when you are hypocritical...can't be for unrestricted business and market forces and be against pornography at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

Posted by: AstrosFan at July 6, 2007 10:26 AM

Mike, I don't think it is chickens roosting. 10 years ago I was berated by a liberal, devoutly religious uncle for maintaining exposure to GM stock. They were, in his opinion, the biggest pornographer on the planet, via ownership of satellite television. This wacky accusation came at his brother's wake. If you think it's Rovian you have not been following politics long. That said, I don't expect it has legs.

Posted by: abe at July 6, 2007 11:35 AM

The Crank,I read your alternative headline as saying the hotel criticized Romney for his porn sales.Is there a way to include the hook 'porn' in a headline alongside Romney's name without some ambiguity?

Posted by: AnonE.Mouse at July 6, 2007 12:39 PM

Fascinating. A blatantly biased headline in a nominally objective medium is defended as if Romney set his head on the block and of course the AP should swing the axe. Priceless.

The same lefties who always rush to differ when the claim is a leftist bias in the media actually defend the media here because of Romney's supposed hypocrisy.

I don't know what it is about this blog, but you rarely see leftist dishonesty so shamelessly exposed as in the comments here.

Posted by: spongeworthy at July 6, 2007 1:04 PM

How about a news media that's not afraid to report on the emperor's bare ass?Same challenge to you,spongeworthy.Include 'porn' and anyone's name in a headline and make it sound innocent.And let's not forget,it was social conservatives (I think they play for your team) who originally brought the charge and made it news.
As for myself,I'll be staying at the Mariott from now on.

Posted by: AnonE.Mouse at July 6, 2007 3:14 PM

A Mariott? You strike me as a Holiday Inn Express type of guy.

Posted by: abe at July 6, 2007 3:46 PM

"Supposed" hypocrisy? Please tell me you are kidding and not ignorant.

Thing is I don't really give a rat's butt about porn, spanktravision, porno theatres, whatever. If that floats your boat, minors aren't involved and everyone agrees than more power to you. This is just ANOTHER example in the practically infinitely long line of right wing, moral crusader, holier-than-thou types getting caught with their pants around their ankles.

Did any of the more sensible posters rush to the defense of Gore when it was posted here about his personal energy consumption? I don't exactly recall but I don't think so. You all just can't take any criticism or accept any responsibility or recognize any hypocrisy. Let's have a little chat about Bush'r advisor Ted Hagard why don't we?

Posted by: jim at July 6, 2007 5:29 PM

No,not really.The reason I use the Holiday Inn Express is that spongeworthy's wife seems to like the bounce in the mattresses there.

Posted by: AnonE.Mouse at July 6, 2007 7:04 PM

Yeah, it's all liberal trial lawyers filing ridiculous law suits:


Posted by: jim at July 7, 2007 11:18 AM

I agree Jim -- a loser on so many levels. I remember the Bar Prep Advisor saying the most important thing to remember for any Domestic Relations question was 'in the best interests of the children.' So if this dumbass just wrote that phrase three times and reitereated some of the facts he would have passed. Too bad he spent more time listening to Rush Limbaugh and not enough time listening to the Bar Prep Advisors.

Posted by: Patrick at July 7, 2007 1:03 PM

Jim, that's an interesting link. I wonder if the doofus went to Bob Jones University. At least he will then qualify to be a US Attorney, no matter his lack of any other merit.

Posted by: Daryl Rosenblatt at July 8, 2007 12:36 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg