One of these AP articles is not like the other....

As I'm sitting back in Pierre tonight, trying to organize my MP3 collection, I caught some chatter on the fact that there's two or three versions of an Associated Press article out there on the same topic. One appears to be presented in its entirety, and the other.... Well let's just say its a bit watered down.

See if you can catch the difference. Here's the first article which I mentioned a few days ago:

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/16990498.htm

and the Argus Leader version of the same article? Well it's not available on line at the Argus website at all. But what it does do is to edit out the harsh criticism that the people quoted in the article have for the three democratically appointed judges.

The Argus article stops with the paragraph

"An assistant U.S. attorney from another state ultimately was appointed until a South Dakota lawyer was nominated and approved."

But then leaves out nearly half of the article which continues on....
Schreier declined to comment on whether she wants to keep Kornmann's seat from slipping into Republican hands.

Piersol said, "I would just say we're helping Judge Kornmann out. What he does is up to him."

Yes, before you start, I am aware that newspapers will clip off parts of columns and articles that they purchase through syndication. But at least to this reader, it appears that they've strongly blunted the critique that the article had for the people sitting on South Dakota's federal bench. In other words, it almost comes off as a different article.

You need to go read the rest of the article because the article as it was originally written appears to tell a much different story.

Kornmann, Piersol and Schreier have deep Democratic roots in a heavily Republican state.

Schreier is a former chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party and Kornmann is a former state party executive director. Piersol served as majority leader of the South Dakota House as a Democrat in 1973-1974.

Piersol took heat from Republicans in 2004 for not recusing himself when then-Sen. Tom Daschle, a close friend and Democrat, took Republican poll watchers to court the night before the election in which Daschle lost to Thune.

Read that all here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
you mean the Argus Leader is cutting out parts of stories that hurt liberal hacks??? I'm shocked, shocked!

I think you just caught the Argus in another cover-up

WHERE'S THE OPENNESS, DEAR ARGUS LEADER????
Kelly said…
I've now read both versions. This is clearly an effort to protect the Democrat judges. Here are samples of what the Argus Leader left out:

SAMPLE 1:

"Schreier declined to comment on whether she wants to keep Kornmann's seat from slipping into Republican hands."

SAMPLE 2:

"Piersol said, 'I would just say we're helping Judge Kornmann out. What he does is up to him.'"

SAMPLE 3:

"It might also be unethical, said Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. 'Active judges are required to carry full caseloads. If Judge Kornmann is no longer carrying a full caseload and if the other judges agreed to carry part of his caseload in exchange for his agreement not to retire, that would seem a form of BRIBERY,' Whelan said."

SAMPLE 4:

Kornmann, Piersol and Schreier have deep Democratic roots in a heavily Republican state. Schreier is a former chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party and Kornmann is a former state party executive director. Piersol served as majority leader of the South Dakota House as a Democrat in 1973-1974.

THE ARGUS LEADER CENSORED OUT ALL THE HARSH INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEMOCRAT JUDGES.
Anonymous said…
Welcome to another episode of retards blogging. If the Argus wanted to "protect the liberal judges" it wouldn't have run the story at all.
Anonymous said…
what is the more outrageous? the liberal judicial conspiracy or the Argus Leader cover-up?
MK said…
so what happens to these "judges" now? is there some board that oversees what these "judges" are doing?
Anonymous said…
Rush talked about the South Dakota Democratic judges last week
BV said…
This is one of those blog stories which are actually important. I can't believe this judge said what he did. Is this common? What about all the people who had cases in front of this judge which dragged on for 3 years?
Anonymous said…
This is the same dude who tried to throw the 2004 election for Daschle because they were friends, right?
Anonymous said…
do these liberal judges have no shame?

aren't they supposed to be, like, setting an example of impartiality and such?
Anonymous said…
11:03--report them to the state bar association or to the judicial conference of South Dakota's circuit
Anonymous said…
Let's get this straight. Federal judges can retire whenever they want to and for whatever reason they want to. There is no mandatory retirement age for federal judges.

Judge Kornmann is younger than most of the Supreme Court justices. Where's the outrage that Scalia hasn't retired? Where's the outrage that Kennedy hasn't retired? Where's the outrage that 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Wollman from SD hasn't retired (he's much older than Kornmann)?

You people got outrage for all of the older judges still on the bench, or just one you think is "liberal"?
Anonymous said…
It won't do any good to report them. They protect each other.
Anonymous said…
You guys are idiots. Federal judges are appointed for life. Luck of the draw, Clinton got to appoint all of SD's three active federal judges. Deal with it.
Anonymous said…
9:14

Have any of those justices/judges you named given away 2/3 of their caseload instead of retiring? I'm pretty sure that would make the news. It's not a question of age; it's a question of doing the job.
Anonymous said…
Nothing like the cutting edge of news from SDWC. Kornmann was the exec dir of the state Democrats ... um ... back in ... 1963.

Looks scandalous to me, yep.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th