GfS, I'm wondering that myself.   With conflicts of interest being so common - in all branches of government - and with corruption occurring so often both in the public & private sector (Intel's now under investigation for corrupt practices, I heard today) - what and who determines which allegations make news, which investigations are undertaken and which ones get TV coverage, and in what cases is the political affiliation or philosophy of the accused highlighted?   Who decides these things?

I find the timing of the investigations & stories about Rangel and, especially, Waters, more than a bit suspicious. Whatever the allegations of impropriety against Maxine Waters, they could have been made public months ago instead of 3 months before the midterm elections.

I don't think it's any secret that the major news media like to see elections close so the suspense will drive ratings. That means a tendency to skew their coverage in a way that will favor those out of power, or the underdogs - whatever will tighten the gap.   The major media are also huge businesses owned by even bigger conglomerates, and that does tend to make them favor pro-business candidates over pro-labor and those politicians who favor less regulation and lower taxation of the big corporations.   

But the Democrats, as the majority party, have a lot to say about who gets investigated. I'm not sure how much and by what means the Republicans influence things like this, but I'm sure they do have some influence, as they are represented on the Congressional committees.   

It's also true that GW Bush pretty much purged the Justice Dept. of most attorneys who didn't share the Republicans' political aims and views, and the Obama admin. hasn't done much to change that (partly because so many of Obama's nominees have had "holds" put on them by Republicans).   So the makeup of the Federal Dept. Of Justice may have something to do with this rather convenient (for the Republicans) timing.

I'd really like to find out more about this.