NewsBreakingOnline

Friday, a jury convicted former Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Ciavarella of “12 counts, including racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy, but acquitted him of 27 counts, including extortion” in connection with “what prosecutors said was a 'kids for cash' scheme that ranks among the biggest courtroom frauds in U.S. history.” Ciavarella was “accused of using juvenile delinquents as pawns in a plot to get rich,” i.e., that “he incarcerated youths for money.” The quotes in the previous paragraph are from Associated Press reporter Michael Rubinkam's story on the verdict. Rubinkam's report caps two years of the wire service's consistent failure to tell its own readers and viewers, as well readers, listeners, and viewers at subscribing outlets, the political party affiliations of Ciavarella and former judicial colleague Michael Conahan, who separately “pleaded guilty to racketeering last year.” “Both are Democrats.” From all appearances, the AP said so just once, in a report two years ago when the judges were indicted, as shown in the graphic that follows: In my original post about the AP's coverage of the judges two years ago (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), I noted that: The item on the left (original saved here ) appeared at the Topix.com discussion forum. The Topix post references and links to a specific msnbc.com URL. As seen on the right, by the time I went to that same MSNBC URL, the story had been revised. “Both are Democrats” was gone. The revised 856-word AP report at MSNBC ( saved here ) did not contain any mention of the judges' party affiliation. “It is virtually inconceivable that Topix would have gratuitously added 'Both are Democrats' on its own. Those words were almost definitely present at MSNBC when Topix did its excerpt.” In the two years since, I don't recall coming across any other AP report on the two judges mentioning either's party affiliation. So the AP writer who wrote the original story (it may have been Rubinkam, as readers will see shortly) thought it was important enough to mention that “Both are Democrats” right off the bat. That's because he or she was adhering to the wire service's published guidelines on when to include party affiliation: party affiliation Let relevance be the guide in determining whether to include a political figure’s party affiliation in a story. Party affiliation is pointless in some stories, such as an account of a governor accepting a button from a poster child. It will occur naturally in many political stories. For stories between these extremes, include party affiliation if readers need it for understanding or are likely to be curious about what it is. But then, guidelines be damned, it was gone. As I wrote two years ago: Since this is clearly a national story involving a horrible, orchestrated, large-scale betrayal of the public trust, there is little doubt that the rest of the nation is quite “likely to be curious” about Ciavarella's and Conahan's party membership. But the AP's Michael Rubinkam and MaryClaire Dale, who are bylined … in the party-purged version of the story carried at DCexaminer.com, apparently didn't think readers were entitled to know.