PJ O'Donovan

Published March 30, 2007

None dared call it pork

Dana Milbank's page two-er today, "Senate's Bold Proposal for Iraq:
Sugar Beets and Rural Schools - in the U.S." ( 1 ) in the Washington
Post, broke down some of the items added to the emergency spending
bill for the war on terror.

Milbank did not tell readers the Democratic Senate used this bill to
ladle out its annual $20 billion in pork.

In fact, the word "pork" did not appear even once in his story.

He called it "pet projects."

That has a much nicer sound, doesn't it?

It is as if congressmen and senators were adopting animals from the
local shelter.

Who could oppose pet projects for schoolchildren? Only those mean
Republicans, right?

Milbank is not alone in the media shilling for congressional
Democrats.

"Conservatives Oppose Pet Projects" ( 2 ) read the headline over the
March 27 story by Andrew Taylor. The word "pork" was never used.

"Senate GOP Will Not Block Iraq Bill"( 3 ) by Ann Flaherty of AP on
March 26 also called the waste "pet projects." She too did not use
"pork" once.

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times also deployed the "pet projects"
euphemism in his March 27 story, "Republicans to Rely on President
Bush's Veto to Block Troop Withdrawal Plan." ( 4 ) He did use "pork"
once, but only in a direct quote from one of those bitter Republican
senators.

So there you have it. When Democrats lard up an emergency bill,
Washington reporters say it is for "pet projects."

When Republicans do it, it is pork.

Put that alongside calling tax-exempt groups "non-profits" and calling
lobbyists for liberal causes "activists."

This is all on the same shelf as the journalism rule that when a
Republican is a crook, you identify his party immediately. If
Democratic, disclosing the party affiliation is optional.


( 1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802091.html

( 2 )
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032700464.html

( 3 )
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601084.html

( 4 )
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/washington/27cong.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Runge1

Why post it here, you crossposted that already elsewhere, old fool.

"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected] om...
>
>
> Published March 30, 2007
>
> None dared call it pork
>
> Dana Milbank's page two-er today, "Senate's Bold Proposal for Iraq:
> Sugar Beets and Rural Schools - in the U.S." ( 1 ) in the Washington
> Post, broke down some of the items added to the emergency spending
> bill for the war on terror.
>
> Milbank did not tell readers the Democratic Senate used this bill to
> ladle out its annual $20 billion in pork.
>
> In fact, the word "pork" did not appear even once in his story.
>
> He called it "pet projects."
>
> That has a much nicer sound, doesn't it?
>
> It is as if congressmen and senators were adopting animals from the
> local shelter.
>
> Who could oppose pet projects for schoolchildren? Only those mean
> Republicans, right?
>
> Milbank is not alone in the media shilling for congressional
> Democrats.
>
> "Conservatives Oppose Pet Projects" ( 2 ) read the headline over the
> March 27 story by Andrew Taylor. The word "pork" was never used.
>
> "Senate GOP Will Not Block Iraq Bill"( 3 ) by Ann Flaherty of AP on
> March 26 also called the waste "pet projects." She too did not use
> "pork" once.
>
> Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times also deployed the "pet projects"
> euphemism in his March 27 story, "Republicans to Rely on President
> Bush's Veto to Block Troop Withdrawal Plan." ( 4 ) He did use "pork"
> once, but only in a direct quote from one of those bitter Republican
> senators.
>
> So there you have it. When Democrats lard up an emergency bill,
> Washington reporters say it is for "pet projects."
>
> When Republicans do it, it is pork.
>
> Put that alongside calling tax-exempt groups "non-profits" and calling
> lobbyists for liberal causes "activists."
>
> This is all on the same shelf as the journalism rule that when a
> Republican is a crook, you identify his party immediately. If
> Democratic, disclosing the party affiliation is optional.
>
>
> ( 1)
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032802091.html
>
> ( 2 )
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032700464.html
>
> ( 3 )
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032601084.html
>
> ( 4 )
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/wa...in&oref=slogin
>