# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/61 "2005-10-17T03:59:31Z")
I nominate the OP of this thread for the “Least Pit Worthy Ever” category. Sheesh. :rolleyes: You’ve really gotta be dense to think there’s something significant going on here. By dense, I mean “blinded by insane, irrational partisanship.” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/62 "2005-10-17T07:02:51Z")
> [@BayleDomon](#): > > Can you link to a similar National Briefing about a Republican official in trouble wherein the briefing has the official’s party mentioned? > > Until then, there isn’t exactly a case to be made here. Well, the link that **Jackmannii** provided in his bump post was for the National Briefing on October 13. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/national/12brfs.html) is a story from the National Briefing from the day before, October 12: > [@](#): > > TEXAS: LAWMAKER ARRESTED Representative Kevin Brady, a **Texas Republican** , said he had been arrested on a drunken driving charge on Friday night in South Dakota. He said he did not think he was drunk, but the police booked him after he blew into a breathalyzer and failed field sobriety tests. Mr. Brady was in the state for homecoming at his alma mater, the University of South Dakota. (Reuters) Personally, i think that newspapers should be consistent one way or the other about this. If the person is a politician or former politician, maybe it would be a good idea to always give the party affiliation. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hook](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@The\_Hook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hook)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/63 "2005-10-17T07:17:02Z")
> [@Updike](#): > > Hmm, I thought that bumping threads from nine months ago was against the rules here. Say what? D’oh! :smack: Yes, it _should_ be against the rules. It confuses me. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/64 "2005-10-17T10:17:04Z")
> [@manhattan](#): > > Much as I’d love to bash the _Times_, I believe you are in error, **Jackmanii**. A search on the \*[Times’](http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=Kevin%20Shelley&date_select=full&srchst=nyt) \*site turns up a lot of articles about Mr. Shelley. All of the ones in the “National Briefing” section left out his party affiliation, even back when he was a Democratic party golden boy railing against Diebold machines. The fuller story on the scandal, published on January 9, mentions him as “from a well-known San Francisco Democratic family” in what appears to be the first paragraph. The _Times_ appears to be following long-time standard non-partisan style guidelines in this case. Apparently Shelley’s partisan affiliations aren’t a secret to NY Times readers. > [@](#): > > The scandal of state election officials who are also political partisans has reached a new low. California’s secretary of state announced his resignation this month amid charges that his office spent federal money on Democratic Party politics, and the National Association of Secretaries of State passed a resolution allowing… California Secretary of State [Umpire Still Taking Sides](http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10A15FD3E5E0C778DDDAB0894DD404482) > [@](#): > > In a blow to California Democrats, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced Friday that he would step down next month because of state and federal investigations into his political and personal conduct. [Quitting](http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40617F83A5F0C768CDDAB0894DD404482) If only Republicans would spend half as much time and energy lambasting corporate media for their lilly-livered, unquestioning support of Bush’s ‘Lie the Country into War’ agenda. And expend the other half on being lied into a war by Bush (R-Another Planet) ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/65 "2005-10-17T11:38:41Z")
Fortunately for you lovely folk, I happen to have access to Lexis-Nexis at home. I did a search on “Kevin Shelley” and “Democrat” for the last two years, and selected the NYT. Three long articles came up. All three mentioned Mr. Shelley’s party affiliation. Going back five years and limiting the search to the NYT pulled up five articles, three of which came up the first time. Articles about Gray Davis’ recall did not list Shelley’s party affiliation. The articles about Mr. Shelley’s own problems, however, did. Now, I have in front of me a copy of the AP’s broadcast stylebook. It does not differ substantially from the AP print stylebook. Here’s what it has to say: > [@AP](#): > > Let relevance be the guide in determining whether to include a political figure’s party affiliation in a story. More to the point, though, the NYT probably just didn’t see a need to add political affiliation to a small “roundup” story that it probably got off the wire anyway. The readers who care know, and the readers who don’t care wouldn’t care anyway. Amazing when a media outlet doesn’t treat its readership like morons. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/66 "2005-10-17T11:47:21Z")
> [@New York Times](#): > > NEW MEXICO: extortion charge for TREASURER Federal prosecutors charged New Mexico’s treasurer with 19 counts of extortion Wednesday, stating that he pocketed $265,000 in kickbacks while investing public money. … Prosecutors have also charged former Treasurer Michael A. Montoya in the case, contending that both elected officials, **both of whom are Democrats** , demanded kickbacks from investment advisers in exchange for steering state business to them. Compare to: > [@](#): > > TEXAS: delay associates go free Two associates of Representative Tom DeLay were released on $10,000 personal bonds as their lawyers indicated they might split from their former boss on legal strategy. Lawyers for the defendants, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro, are pressing in Texas appeals courts to have their charges dismissed before going to trial. They made it clear they would be willing to wait weeks or months for those appellate decisions. Mr. DeLay’s lawyers, have said they want his trial as soon as possible. Mr. Ellis, Mr. Colyandro and Mr. DeLay are awaiting trial in a case in which a prosecutor alleges a scheme to circumvent Texas’s ban on corporate money for political campaigns. (AP) Note that nobody’s political affiliation is mentioned in the second case, involving unelected folks; the affiliation is mentioned in the first case, involving elected folks. If there is a deliberate effort to show folks’ affiliations sometimes and elide them other times, it seems likely to me that they do it based on whether the person is elected. In any case, **Jack** , what did the NYTimes say when you wrote to them to ask for their side of the story? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/67 "2005-10-17T11:53:35Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Already have. First page of the thread. Jack Ryan (a Republican derailed by scandal, whose party affiliation the Times referred to in _the first four words_ of its story). My bad. Figures I’d skip over the one post I was looking for. I also managed to miss this was a zombie thread. :smack: Well, that is interesting. A little consistency would be nice. Are these briefings written by one person or multiple? ---
**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:** [October 17, 2005, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/68 "2005-10-17T12:23:51Z")
For **Left Hand** : The comparison to DeLay coverage is a mite weak. Anyone who follows the news even minimally knows that DeLay is a _Republican_ leader. By contrast, Ballance’s troubles are far more obscure and most people probably were unaware of his existence (I had not heard of the story before reading the National Briefing item). If you’re a “newspaper of record”, you print the salient facts. Unless you’ve got an ax to grind. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/69 "2005-10-17T13:03:31Z")
I agree that it should have been mentioned that Shelley was a Democrat, since his misuse of funds would have benefited Democratic pols, presumably, therefore the information is relevant. As to the implication that the Times is tilted toward Dems, I don’t think so. If that were the case, I hardly think Judith Miller could have gotten away with being a total hose beast for the Bush Administration during the run-up to the Iraq War, printing so many stories based on Administration lies that they eventually had to apologize for the shoddy quality of her work. If there were a bias against the Repubs/Bushies at the Times, I think her stories would have come under scrutiny a lot sooner. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/70 "2005-10-17T15:29:03Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > For **Left Hand** : The comparison to DeLay coverage is a mite weak. Not as weak as your comparison. I’m suggesting that (and I’ll go a little farther here) when discussing people who: 1. Committed the newsworthy act as part of their job; and 2. Obtained their job through a party election it’s newsworthy to comment on their party affiliation. Otherwise, it’s not newsworthy. Now, that’s one possibility. Another possibility is that it’s essentially random whether party affiliation appears in discussion of a scandal: to see if this is the case, we need more than half a dozen articles to judge by. Another possibility is that there’s a clear pattern; however, that’s already been disproven, given the scandals in which Democratic affiliation is mentioned and ones in which Republican party affiliation is not mentioned. If you give a shit about this, I’m sure you can find an email address for the Times and get an answer from the horse’s mouth; doing so will probably take you less time than continuing to defend an untenable thesis here would take. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/71 "2005-10-17T15:53:53Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > Fortunately for you lovely folk, I happen to have access to Lexis-Nexis at home. > > I did a search on “Kevin Shelley” and “Democrat” for the last two years, and selected the NYT. Three long articles came up. All three mentioned Mr. Shelley’s party affiliation. Going back five years and limiting the search to the NYT pulled up five articles, three of which came up the first time. Articles about Gray Davis’ recall did not list Shelley’s party affiliation. The articles about Mr. Shelley’s own problems, however, did. > > Now, I have in front of me a copy of the AP’s broadcast stylebook. It does not differ substantially from the AP print stylebook. Here’s what it has to say: > > More to the point, though, the NYT probably just didn’t see a need to add political affiliation to a small “roundup” story that it probably got off the wire anyway. The readers who care know, and the readers who don’t care wouldn’t care anyway. > > Amazing when a media outlet doesn’t treat its readership like morons. > > Robin You know, as a matter of general principle, i agree with every thing you’ve said here. I don’t believe that the _Times_’s ommission of the party affiliation of those Democrats is something to worry too much about, nor do i think it is part of some systematic or conspiratorial attempt to cover up Democratic wrongdoing. But if it’s not relevant to mention the party affiliation of a politician who’s accused, while in office, of misusing funds and accepting inappropriate donations, then why is it appropriate to mention the party affiliation of a Texas lawmaker arrested for drunk driving in South Dakota, as in the example i gave in post #62? One possible explanation for all this is, as you suggested, that the _NYT_ simply picks the story off the wire and runs it word for word. In that case, it’s the wire services who we need to examine. And while my sample size is small, there is a pattern here: the two stories provided by **Jackmanii** in which the Democrats’ party affiliation was not mentioned came from AP, while the story i provided in which the Republican’s affiliation _was_ mentioned came from Reuters. Not sure if this is significant, but it could explain the apparent discrepancy in the _Times_’s system. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Not as weak as your comparison. I’m suggesting that (and I’ll go a little farther here) when discussing people who: > > 1. Committed the newsworthy act as part of their job; and > 2. Obtained their job through a party election > it’s newsworthy to comment on their party affiliation. Otherwise, it’s not newsworthy. I agree with this post also, but again, it does raise the question of why the party affiliation of a guy caught drunk driving is relevant to the story, as i discussed above. Still, on the whole, i agree that our sample size is far too small here to draw any definitive conclusions. Also, these National Briefings are very short pieces, and as others have pointed out, if you wanted to find out more on the issues they discuss then you’d have to look for longer, more in-depth articles which would, undoubtedly, carry the person’s party affiliation. No-one (except parhaps the OP) is using these Briefings as their main source of information. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/72 "2005-10-17T16:22:16Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I agree with this post also, but again, it does raise the question of why the party affiliation of a guy caught drunk driving is relevant to the story, as i discussed above. Good point, and it also occurred to me that Ballance almost certainly committed his crimes while in his role as an elected official; my theory is shot out of the water. Still and all, **Jack’s** is, too. I’ve just sent an email to the NYTimes asking for clarification of their policy. I’ll let y’all know if I get an answer. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/73 "2005-10-17T16:38:36Z")
Real journalist checking in here. There are lots of reasons why the Times might have left out the party affiliation – “Briefs” sections are often compiled quickly just before the publication goes to press without intense scrutiny and often by people with less experience. They are most often compiled merely by lopping off the top two or three sentences of a longer story and they are given cursory inspection, especially if they are from a reputable wire service like the Associated Press. Even if problems are noticed before publication, corrections will not be made unless there is an _affirmative error_. So, if there are minor style problems or small pieces of information missing, such as the party affiliation, they will not be fixed. Furthermore, national news agencies often care little about state-level politics and many editors will not bother to insist on information like party affiliation, especially when it is “only” a briefs section that must be completed quickly so that the paper can be sent to press. Additionally, editors often cut ruthlessly because the No. 1 important feature of briefs is that they fit the space allocated to them. If the section is too long, an editor will start cutting out all sorts of information in order to cut it down to size. When you start getting to this point, there’s no time for rewriting, so an editor will start cutting out individual words. Whatever words can be cut out such that the sentence is still understandable and readable will be cut. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/74 "2005-10-17T16:42:55Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > > [@Updike](#): > > > > No, you’re supposed to provide a link, not bump old threads. > > Really? Let me know where you gleaned this nugget. One is not supposed to start multiple threads on the same topic, so it would appear appropriate to update this one. [From this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=1997121&postcount=6), dated 04-14-2002, from the **"FAQ - guidelines for posting at the SDMB"** > [@Arnold Winkelried](#): > > **What if I want to continue / add to the discussion on a topic that was mentioned in an old thread?** > > Generally, we prefer you start a new thread with a link to the old thread. Often, an old thread includes statements from posters who are no longer members, and so cannot reply. It’s therefore often “unfair” to respond to old posts. (A general guideline for “old” would be a thread older than three months.) However, the rules on reviving old threads are different for the different forums: more acceptable in Comments on Cecil’s Columns, Comments on Staff Reports, and Cafe Society than in the other forums. ---
**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:** [October 17, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/75 "2005-10-17T16:48:34Z")
As an ex-journalist, I am amazed that someone allegedly in the business would claim that when a politician is enmeshed in scandal, his **party affiliation** is a “small piece of information”. :dubious: **Left Hand** : If the three examples provided of how the Times has played similar stories in different ways depending on party are not enough to raise your eyebrows, why would six be conclusive? I have a feeling that if I dredged up six, you’d say they were just “anecdotal” and a study by Fairness and Accuracy In Media conducted by PhD-level researchers would be necessary before we could draw any conclusions. As to what the Times might say, it would be interesting to hear the ombudsman’s take on the matter. I don’t think this is necessarily a matter of the Times or its defenders hewing loyally to the Democratic Party. Given the level of fear and loathing towards the Bush Administration (and viewing it in the context of _It’s A Wonderful Life_), it may be the conviction that every time an opposition figure is acknowledged to be acting sleazily, a bell rings and Karl Rove gets to eat another baby. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/76 "2005-10-17T17:07:40Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > **Left Hand** : If the three examples provided of how the Times has played similar stories in different ways depending on party are not enough to raise your eyebrows, why would six be conclusive? We don’t have three stories. We’ve got more than that, and not all of them support your thesis. Thirty stories, in which, say, 80% of them supported your thesis would go a long way toward convincing me. But the plural of anecdote is not data, as you know; and three swallows does not make a summer. Meanwhile, there’s an alternate thesis out there, and an email to NYTimes. Your theory just doesn’t hold water currently. Give me thirty stories with enough accuracy to suggest something beyond random chance, and I’ll take it seriously. Heck, you can start with 10 stories, eight of which support your pattern and which you’ve chosen in some systematic fashion. That’d be a good start. Daniel ---
**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:** [October 17, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/77 "2005-10-17T17:16:27Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > We don’t have three stories. We’ve got more than that, and not all of them support your thesis. Really? Which National Briefing stories about a Republican politician involved in scandalous or criminal behavior fail to mention his/her party? I have seen none cited here. > [@](#): > > Thirty stories, in which, say, 80% of them supported your thesis would go a long way toward convincing me. Now you need 24 stories to be convinced, up from 6? At the rate your demands for proof are escalating, we’ll need a couple hundred stories by the end of the page. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/78 "2005-10-17T17:22:49Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > As an ex-journalist, I am amazed that someone allegedly in the business would claim that when a politician is enmeshed in scandal, his **party affiliation** is a “small piece of information”. :dubious: Yeah, just pick and choose one small phrase thus removing the entire context of what I’m telling you. Yes, when you’re on deadline, on the floor, cutting for space, and the typesetters and the managing editor are yelling at you to get the page off the floor, lots of things become “small pieces of information.” As I said, _any_ word that can be removed and leave a sentence readable becomes fair game. And when it’s the party affiliation of some freaking _state_ official, it’s even more fair game, because _who cares about officials of other states_? Yes, it’s a mindset that might be in error generally and it might be in error for a particular story, but on deadline, decisions are made quickly. I’ve _never_ seen anyone or heard of anyone at a mainstream news publication removing party affiliation intentionally with the intent of keeping it hidden from readers. First of all, only a very stupid editor would think that something like that would work. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/79 "2005-10-17T17:22:58Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Really? Which National Briefing stories about a Republican politician involved in scandalous or criminal behavior fail to mention his/her party? I have seen none cited here. Your pattern is also broken by National Briefing stories about Democratic politicians involved in scandalous behavior that do mention the party. And the DeLay one doesn’t mention party, which you say is due to the fact that everyone knows the party–something new to your argument. > [@](#): > > Now you need 24 stories to be convinced, up from 6? At the rate your demands for proof are escalating, we’ll need a couple hundred stories by the end of the page. 😃 It took me awhile to figure out what you were on about. Is this what you’re talking about? > [@me](#): > > Another possibility is that it’s essentially random whether party affiliation appears in discussion of a scandal: to see if this is the case, we need more than half a dozen articles to judge by. In your world, is six more than half a dozen? The “half a dozen” was a reference to the articles we currently have, not to the ones we need. Daniel ---
**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:** [October 17, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248/80 "2005-10-17T18:03:16Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Really? Which National Briefing stories about a Republican politician involved in scandalous or criminal behavior fail to mention his/her party? I have seen none cited here.Now you need 24 stories to be convinced, up from 6? At the rate your demands for proof are escalating, we’ll need a couple hundred stories by the end of the page. 😃 Yeesh. Last time I checked, (1974) the _NYT_ didn’t even have a comics page. Translation: It’s not like they’re a real newspaper. Why do you even care? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/news-thats-evidently-not-fit-to-print/287248.md?page=5)