“Unyeilding” vs “good old fashioned”

We’re talking, of course, of the difference in how the press identifies Republicans and Democrats:

The disparity in reporting was not limited to numbers. Times reporters often inject comments that present liberals in a more favorable light than conservatives. For instance, during the 102nd Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa was described in Times stories as “a kindred liberal Democrat from Iowa,” a “respected Midwestern liberal” and “a good old-fashioned liberal.” Fellow Democrat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts received neutral, if not benign, identification: “a liberal spokesman” and “the party’s old-school liberal.”

In contrast, Times reporters presented conservative senators as belligerent and extreme. During the 102nd Congress, Sen. Jesse Helms was labeled as “the most unyielding conservative,” “the unyielding conservative Republican,” “the contentious conservative” and “the Republican arch-conservative.” During this time period, Times reporters made a point to specifically identify Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and Sen. Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire as “very conservative,” and Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma as “one of the most conservative elected officials in America.”

Nice to read, but nothing new. It’s rather like the way the press writes about rich Republicans and Democrats…just Democrats. I once asked a journalist why we were always hearing about “Rich Republicans” but we never saw the Nantucket/Martha’s Vineyard/Malibu or seat-buying Democrats referred to as “Rich Democrats.” He wrote back:

I dunno.

A few hours later, he emailed back with this: I googled “wealthy democrats” and got 965 responses. I googled “wealthy republicans” and got … 17,900.

There is precious little under the sun that is new.