Double Standard Watch: Philadelphia Inquirer on PR Consultants

The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a front-page article- "Perzel fixes up image on Pa.'s tab. Stung by PR gaffes, the state House speaker hired an outside consultant at a cost of $5000 a month."  

Taxpayers have a right to know how our state reps spend our money, so I commend the Inquirer for investigating the issue. But the article is not balanced. 

Perzel's spending is splashed all over the front page (i.e. the only part of the paper most people read), but the following was hidden on page A14 (which also had the headline- "Perzel brushes up his image on taxpayers' tab):

"The speaker is not alone in spending taxpayer dollars for outside media consultants.

Sen. Vincent J. Fumo (D., Phila.) pays $60,000 a year from his Appropriations Committee account to public-relations expert Ken Snyder. Philadelphia media consultant Larry Ceisler gets $42,000 annually from House Democrats for his expertise with press relations."

So Fumo pays $60,000 a year for a PR expert, and Perzel pays $5000 a month to his PR expert. Doesn't $5000 x 12= $60,000? Yep. It does. That means that Perzel and Fumo spent the same amount of taxpayer money on PR experts. So why doesn't Fumo share the same negative front-page headline with Perzel? Why is his spending of taxpayer money hidden on page A14? Why does he get 1 sentence of bad press vs. a whole article for Perzel?

Why should Sen. Vincent J Fumo (D., Phila.) be treated differently than Perzel (R., Phila.)? What a difference a "D" makes!