Last March, as thousands protested on Capitol Hill in the days before the passage of ObamaCare, CBS's Nancy Cordes slammed it as "a weekend filled with incivility," while World News anchor Diane Sawyer painted the Tea Party as a violent gang, with "protesters roaming Washington, some of them increasingly emotional, yelling slurs and epithets." In August 2009, ABC anchor Charles Gibson complained how "protesters brought pictures of President Obama with a Hitler-style mustache to a town hall meeting," failing to mention that the signs were produced by Lyndon LaRouche's wacky fringe movement, not the Tea Party or conservatives.

 

Another protest sign drew a cross-hairs over a picture of Governor Walker's head, with the caption "Don't Retreat, Reload; Repeal Walker" — an obvious parallel to a Facebook map posted by Sarah Palin last year, although that much-criticized graphic placed the target sights on maps of congressional districts, not any politician's face.

 

Yet none of these signs in the hands of liberal protesters have drawn the slightest complaint from network journalists. MRC analysts examined all 53 ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news stories, segments and anchor briefs on the Wisconsin protests from Thursday, February 17 (when they first drew major national coverage) through Monday, February 21. While eight of the 53 stories (15%) visually displayed one or more of the signs described above, none elicited a single remark from the network correspondents.

 

Link

Instead, network journalists actually suggested the "Walker = Mubarak" theme of some of the more inflammatory signs. On Sunday's This Week, for example, ABC's Christiane Amanpour linked Wisconsin to the uprisings against oppressive dictatorships: "Populist frustration is boiling over this week, as we've said, not just in the Middle East, but in the middle of this country as well." So did NBC's Brian Williams on Friday's Nightly News: "From the Mideast to the American Midwest tonight, people are rising up. Citizens' uprisings are changing the world." NBC's on-screen caption: "The Uprising at Home."

 

ABC's Diane Sawyer opened Thursday's World News by empathizing with the protesters:

 

Today, we saw America's money trouble meet a reality, a human reality, as teachers, nurses, tens of thousands of state workers took to the streets in this country, protesting cuts by the governors, saying to these governors, a promise is a promise. One lawmaker looked out at the crowds gathered in the Wisconsin capital today said it's like Cairo moved to Madison.

 

The only time network journalists fretted about the Wisconsin protests getting out of hand was when their favorite bogeyman, the Tea Party, became involved — as ABC's Barbara Pinto did on Saturday's Good Morning America: "Today, those demonstrations are expected to get more intense and more polarizing — we're watching police officers arrive here this morning. And that is because the Tea Party is staging a counter-demonstration of its own today."

My only comment is that I am absolutely yearning for a political party, or even some leaders, who "take the high road" and don't use hyperbolic tactics to advance their positions.

My only comment is that I am absolutely yearning for a political party, or even some leaders, who "take the high road" and don't use hyperbolic tactics to advance their positions.

 

Do you believe Governor Walker has engaged in hyperbole? I find he has been very blunt and straightforward. 1) the state if going bankrupt 2) government union worker benefits are a significant part of that 3) we can't sustain that level 4) I'm not going to raise taxes 5) I'm going to reduce benefits to more reasonable levels 6) I'm going to eliminate certain CBA provisions that will impede that reduction.

Do you believe Governor Walker has engaged in hyperbole? I find he has been very blunt and straightforward. 1) the state if going bankrupt 2) government union worker benefits are a significant part of that 3) we can't sustain that level 4) I'm not going to raise taxes 5) I'm going to reduce benefits to more reasonable levels 6) I'm going to eliminate certain CBA provisions that will impede that reduction.

 

No. Actually I was talking about the leaders of the opposition to his proposals. Whenever one side doesn't agree with the other, the immediate tactic is rhetoric and hyperbole, versus viable alternatives as their contribution.

No. Actually I was talking about the leaders of the opposition to his proposals. Whenever one side doesn't agree with the other, the immediate tactic is rhetoric and hyperbole, versus viable alternatives as their contribution.

 

Yes, that does seem to be the norm.

No. Actually I was talking about the leaders of the opposition to his proposals. Whenever one side doesn't agree with the other, the immediate tactic is rhetoric and hyperbole, versus viable alternatives as their contribution.

You have a very valid point.

 

Question: Do you agree that there has been a double standard here?

You have a very valid point.

 

Question: Do you agree that there has been a double standard here?

 

Yes. But I don't think it's a new double standard. It's prevalent throughout politics.

Thanks for your honesty, RM.

 

I'm interested in the opinions of a few posters in this forum that were able to call it "as they saw it" with the Tea Party. Is there a double standard here or not?

The most salient double standard has simply been the result of partisan politics. Many liberals vilified the Tea Party as ignorant and potentially violent while many conservatives defended them as God-fearing patriots speaking out against injustice. Now that the roles are reversed many conservatives are vilifying the Wisconsin protesters as unemployed bums engaging in organized thuggery because they didn’t get what they wanted while many liberals are going through pains to point out how peaceful and righteous the protesting has been. On one hand, it’s certainly expected that conservatives would disagree with the unions and the liberals would disagree with the Tea Party in substance. But, the desperation to demonize the opposing side at the expense of any substantive debate says something much worse about our democracy.

 

I rarely, if ever, watch televised news. I’ll occasionally flip through the cable options at them gym. So, I can’t really speak to differences in coverage, but the Tea Party was something that was covered for several months, from town hall debates over health care all the way through the midterm elections. This study in the article consumed one weekend. I think it’s hard to draw any credible conclusions from that comparison. Though, the nonsensical comparisons to the Middle East protests are silly and an example of the media’s need to sensationalize everything.

Not surprised that certain posters are turning a blind eye to this...

I will admit that I have gotten tired of all sides of government: Democrats, Repbulicans, Tea Party, Green Party, Ice Cream Party.

 

I am starting a Common Sense Party.

Not surprised that certain posters are turning a blind eye to this...

 

Should I start a roll call?

 

TB&G is here and agrees with Habib. It's a double double standard, like so many things now.

Hyperbole on either side accomplishes nothing ... the Nazi references, the crosshairs, etc. It does nothing to further discourse or even begin to offer solutions to problems.

I agree that there is a double standard. I think this comes from a view of the haves versus the have nots. I think the media sees the Tea Party/Conservatives/Republicans as the haves and the Unions/Liberals/Democrats as the have nots. The media, like many people in society, favors the underdog, which is the have not, so they don't want to attack those who they see as fighting for their livelihood. In Wisconsin, the Republican leadership is seen as the oppressor by the media because they are taking away rights that the have nots fought for. I am not saying this view is right or wrong or taking sides. I am just laying it out as I believe the media sees this and why they are reporting it the way they are.