# News That's Evidently Not Fit To Print **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2005, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248 "2005-01-29T05:02:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/1 "2005-01-29T05:02:51Z")
Amid the rising stench of sellout journalists paid by the Bush Administration to hawk its policies, there was an interesting little odor emanating today from the N.Y. Times, one of the papers that has indignantly protested such breaches of ethics. Consider the following story in its [National Briefings section](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/28/national/28brfs.html?pagewanted=all), entitled **California: More Trouble For State Official** (registration may be required to view link) _"In the latest blow to California’s secretary of state, Kevin Shelley, the federal commission that distributes election reform money voted to audit millions of dollars in questionable expenditures he oversaw. The four-member Election Assistance Commission voted unanimously to audit $27.3 million sent to California in 2003. A state audit released last month said Mr. Shelley had mismanaged the money, in part by paying employees to attend partisan events. The commission’s decision is the latest in a cascade of problems for Mr. Shelley, who faces two state investigations and a federal inquiry into accusations of illegally accepting political donations in his state office, and on Tuesday, the State Personnel Board accused him of creating a hostile work environment._ AP Now, the eagle-eyed will notice a little something missing from that Associated Press story. Still can’t tell? Try this version from the website of the CBS affiliate in San Francisco, [KPIX](http://cbs5.com/news/local/2005/01/27/New_Audit_for_Kevin_Shelley.html): \*(AP) - "The federal commission that distributes election reform money to states voted Thursday to audit millions in questionable expenditures overseen by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley. In the latest blow to Shelley, who is also facing criminal investigations of his hiring practices and campaign fund-raising, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission voted unanimously to undertake a formal accounting of some of the $180 million in federal funds sent to California. A state audit released last month said Shelley, a Democrat, mismanaged the funds, using some of it to pay employees and consultants for attending partisan events. “Legitimate questions have been raised … we have a responsibility to make sure all states are in compliance” with federal law, said Commission Chairwoman Gracia Hillman. The state audit said that because of the poor management, California risked failing to meet requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which authorized payments of more than $3 billion to states to update their voting systems. The audit by the Election Assistance Commission is the first the agency has ordered since its creation by the Help America Vote Act. Commissioners, who include two Republicans and two Democrats, said it was necessary because of the serious allegations raised against Shelley in California. While the state audit limited itself to looking at how a sample of the money was spent, the federal audit will take a more comprehensive approach to whether expenditures complied with the Help America Vote Act. Commissioners agreed to audit $27.3 million the state received in 2003 to spend on general election reform activities. The state audit had only sampled about 12 percent of that $27.3 million. California could be asked to return some of the money it received. The decision by the Election Assistance Commission is the latest in a cascade of problems for Shelley, once considered a rising Democratic star. Calls for him to resign have come even from a prominent member of his own party, state Senate Democrat Richard Alarcon of Los Angeles. But Shelley’s campaign spokesman said Wednesday that Shelley did not plan to resign, and would presumably testify under oath before the state’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee next week at a hearing on his handling of the Help America Vote Act money. Besides allegations that he used federal funds to boost his political profile and reward Democratic allies, Shelley also faces two state investigations and a federal probe into accusations he accepted campaign contributions from a political ally that had been laundered through a state grant. He’s also been accused of accepting political donations in his state office. On Tuesday, the state Personnel Board released an audit accusing Shelley of creating a hostile work environment, and asked the state attorney general to investigate the handling of two sexual harassment complaints against Shelley, and look into whether he improperly hired the son of a political ally."\* Hmmmm. I guess the fact that Shelley is a (cough) Democrat was too insignificant for the Times to mention. Or maybe when they shortened the AP’s account to fit in the Times, _something_ had to be deleted. Like multiple mentions of his party affiliation. Betcha the next time some top Republican officeholder in Texas or Florida gets accused of sleaze, the Times story will include _absolutely no hint whatsoever_ about the offender’s political status. The Times, you see, is above that sort of partisan name-calling. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/2 "2005-01-29T06:55:26Z")
Well, the Times reported the story in their _National Briefings_ section. Nine lines on my screen. The full AP story reported in a **California** based media outlet, published the full 36 lines(on my screen). Not too hard to figure out that the Times can’t publish the full AP story on what’s happening in California, any more than they can about Arkansas. But any California media would probably publish the whole thing. Just saying. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/3 "2005-01-29T07:10:17Z")
To follow on **samclem** ’s heels: The West Coast peper _The Los Angeles Times_, (which, if you read its letters page, loses at least a dozen subscribers a week due to its liberal bias), has been covering SoS Shelley’s fiscal mismanagement woes since well before the November election. This California paper has never glossed over the fact that Shelley is a Democrat. But you enjoy your umbrage, all the same, **Jackmannii**. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/4 "2005-01-29T16:22:58Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > Well, the Times reported the story in their _National Briefings_ section. Nine lines on my screen. > > The full AP story reported in a **California** based media outlet, published the full 36 lines(on my screen). > > Not too hard to figure out that the Times can’t publish the full AP story on what’s happening in California, any more than they can about Arkansas. > > But any California media would probably publish the whole thing. > > Just saying. It doesn’t strike you as interesting (not to mention disgusting) that such a key piece of information as the **party affiliation** of a top state politician facing a federal investigation for mismanaging millions in election funds and potential criminal charges (among other things) gets left out of the story? That doesn’t _leap_ out at you? The New York Times, let us remember, is not some local paper with a marginal interest in West Coast affairs. It is a highly influential publication distributed nationwide, and one that strives to set the agenda for public discussion. It should be above this sort of shenanigans. Had Fox News, for example, completely whitewashed a similar story about a Republican official in such a fashion, many would be heaping contempt upon them. And rightfully so. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/5 "2005-01-29T16:31:32Z")
Don’t you hate it when you’re stuck with a sheet that’s too small. You pull on it to cover your body, and your feet stick out. So you use your toes to try and pull it down again and the damn sheet flings down to your belly. No matter how much you try to stretch it, you just can’t get it to fit right. So you have to try to contort yourself to fit under it, but you know that there’s no way you’re going to be able to sleep that way. It’s amazing how some people will just try to keep stretching and contorting, rather than get a new sheet from the linen closet. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/6 "2005-01-29T17:09:55Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > It’s amazing how some people will just try to keep stretching and contorting, rather than get a new sheet from the linen closet. Not to mention how much better you can see without that sheet over your eyes. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/7 "2005-01-29T18:59:18Z")
Okay, I’ll agree. The NY Times review obviously ought to have had the word Democrat in there somewhere. They just could have said, “Democrat Stupid Unethical Poli-Whore Shelley.” ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/8 "2005-01-29T19:05:21Z")
Besides which, the _tu quoque_ hound ain’t huntin’… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/9 "2005-01-29T19:33:48Z")
Oh, I get it now! Its the liberal media! That’s why they didn’t say “democrat”! They were gonna hide the fact that she’s a democrat! And then no one would find out! Boy, is that crafty and cunning! Well, to be fair, the next headline that says something like “Bush Lies Through His Teeth”, if they leave off the part about him being Republican, that’ll settle acounts. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/10 "2005-01-30T02:49:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Oh, I get it now! Its the liberal media! That’s why they didn’t say “democrat”! They were gonna hide the fact that she’s a democrat! And then no one would find out! Boy, is that crafty and cunning! **elucidator** , dear boy, you must really learn to read. The OP said nothing at all about a “liberal media” (in fact, it referenced the Bush-buying of “journalists” to spread the word about its policies). And the “Shelley” referred to is Kevin Shelley. Not a “she” at all. Before you get all defensive and start wildly hurling poop, take the trouble to learn what you’re flinging it _at_. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/11 "2005-01-30T03:47:49Z")
Disingenuousness is so adorable! Too bad its so transparent. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/12 "2005-01-30T06:36:28Z")
My favorite thing about Republican umbrage about media bias (and it’s neatly paralleled by umbrage about bias on the SDMB) is that it’s always based on hypotheticals. It takes forms like, “Now, if Jed Smith were a Republican, every news organization in the country/every Doper on the board would be calling for his blood!” These hypotheticals are fun, because they illustrate just how baseless the Republican persecution complex is. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lodoen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b3f665/32.png) [@Jeff\_Lodoen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lodoen)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/13 "2005-01-30T07:06:58Z")
I think in nine lines they could’ve slipped a **(D-CA)** in there. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/14 "2005-01-30T07:56:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Disingenuousness is so adorable! Too bad its so transparent. Well if _everybody_ knows who Shelly is, and _everybody_ would have figured out that this was a black mark on Democrats, why’d you think he was a she? People know who the president is. This Shelly character? People could use a little reminder. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/15 "2005-01-30T15:16:54Z")
> [@Jeff Lodoen](#): > > I think in nine lines they could’ve slipped a **(D-CA)** in there. Exactly. And another obvious reason for doing so (or splurging on newsprint to add the entire word “Democrat” one time) is that the governor of California is to my knowledge a _Republican_, and one could easily assume all the top state officials are Republicans too. > [@Excalibre](#): > > My favorite thing about Republican umbrage about media bias (and it’s neatly paralleled by umbrage about bias on the SDMB) is that it’s always based on hypotheticals. Well, no. I’ll excuse your first misconception, as you may have missed the numerous threads in which I have stated that I am a lifelong Democrat, or the ones featuring pro-Kerry, anti-Bush comments. It should have occurred to you though, in light of the recent thread in the Pit about Newsweek, that one needn’t be a Republican to raise the issue of bias in a center-left-leaning publication. This is a clear-cut case of an article slanted through omission. And if you still think it’s all “hypothetical”, cast your mind back to when the uproar began over another Secretary of State, Florida’s Katherine Harris and the Gore-Bush recounts. Did the N.Y. Times forget to mention that Harris was a Republican? ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/16 "2005-01-30T15:29:14Z")
Here’s a hypothetical question: You live in a medium-sized midwestern city. Say, Cincinnati. You see a small blurb in the NYT that you’re lucky enough to get from a smuggler making a run down from the People’s Republic of Cleveland. The blurb concerns an ongoing scandal in California state government. Do you: [list=a] [li]Read it with mild interest, and forget about it two minutes later.[/li][li]Read it with intense interest, and jump on Google News to rack down the whole story?[/li][li]Skip it an go directly to the crossword, because who the hell in the rest of the country really gives a shit about California state politics?[/li][/list] ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/17 "2005-01-30T15:32:26Z")
Dude, she was being accused of helping to fix an election for her party in one of the biggest ongoing stories of the year with pages and pages of ink to burn. You’re already stretching things pretty far to try and speculate about the Time’s motives. Let’s not get too crazy. And given how little you’ve mentioned the Bush journalists angle so far, this just looks scramblingly defensive of you. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/18 "2005-01-30T20:26:53Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Dude, she was being accused of helping to fix an election for her party in one of the biggest ongoing stories of the year with pages and pages of ink to burn. > > You’re already stretching things pretty far to try and speculate about the Time’s motives. Let’s not get too crazy. And given how little you’ve mentioned the Bush journalists angle so far, this just looks scramblingly defensive of you. Hmmm, I’d never heard of it before this thread. Maybe it’s not quite as famous as you are claiming. Even know, you say “she was accused of helping to fix an election for her party.” First off: 1. He, NOT she. (If it were that well known, it seems you likely would have picked up on this by now) 2. You say, “her party.” Say it, just say it god-damn it. He was trying to fix a race for the Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/19 "2005-01-30T21:15:56Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Hmmm, I’d never heard of it before this thread. Maybe it’s not quite as famous as you are claiming. Even know, you say “she was accused of helping to fix an election for her party.” > > First off: > > 1. He, NOT she. (If it were that well known, it seems you likely would have picked up on this by now) > > 2. You say, “her party.” Say it, just say it god-damn it. He was trying to fix a race for the Democrats. **threemae** , **Apos** was talking about Kathryn Harris, unless I miss my guess. As for the OP, I think you are right to think that it was sloppy to leave out party affiliation. I use the term “sloppy” out of a desire to be magnanimous to the people at the New York Times. I can see how it might be the result of bias too, but I’m not sure whether it is. It seems like they just copied and pasted (more or less) from the AP story. They ought to have included the man’s party affiliation, but they didn’t. It _is_ a news brief, not a full-blown article, I think that they wouldn’t put as much effort into getting it just right as they would with a full-blown article. Also, from the reader’s perspesctive, it’s not something you are going to put a huge amount of thought into reading most likely, just scan through. I’m not trying to defend what the New York Times did, but it seems like a relatively minor sin. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/20 "2005-01-30T21:25:07Z")
The issue is somewhat trifling, but I think **Jackmannii** is correct. Whether ‘democrat’ was removed consciously or sub-consciously might be a more interesting debate. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248.md?page=2)