Finally, someone (kevhill100 at The Laurel) has succinctly pointed out a weird case of media bias that has been rankling me for quite some time.
For whatever reason, a goodly portion of Connecticut's reporters and news writers like to refer to Ned Lamont with the prefix "Greenwich millionaire" nearly always attached.
Which is fine, because it is the truth. It's a very narrow definition of the man, that's for sure, but it's also a fact.
But then, those very same reporters often refer to other persons of extreme wealth as anything BUT millionaires.
Linda McMahon is often described as a "wrestling entrepreneur". This word "entrepreneur" sort of implies that she's the model of "the little guy", barely making payroll each month at her little mom & pop organization.
The truth being, of course, that Ms. McMahon has the cash available for her to boast that she might spend upwards of fifty million dollars on her own campaign for Senate. That's a five with seven zeroes after it. And she can afford to spend it all on a losing campaign and STILL be a millionaire many times over.
I dunno, but if I had that kind of scratch just laying around, I probably wouldn't be insulted if you called me a "millionaire".
Tom Foley has got quite a few bucks, too. Yet, he is invariably referred to as "former Ambassador to Ireland", and never "rich dude who probably has enough money to buy a small South American country...and then have it Simonized!" *
Ned Lamont, Linda McMahon, and Tom Foley. All three of them are absolutely what anyone with common sense would define as "Greenwich millionaires".
But guess who's the one that usually gets tagged with this obviously condescending moniker?
C'mon you guys, could you just try to be a little more honest with your reporting?
(* actually, there isn't any rational reason to Simoniz a country, but it just struck me as something a fabulously wealthy person might want to do simply to prove that money is NO object to him)