# "Shove it" and media labeling **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983 "2004-07-26T21:13:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/21 "2004-07-27T01:06:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Don’t we have better things to be outraged about these days? Well, it was a pretty slow news day. When the lead story on [CNN.COM](http://CNN.COM) is Patti Labelle warming up for the DNC, you have to take your outrage where you can get it. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/22 "2004-07-27T01:25:50Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Sandy Berger is already being investigated and Joe Wilson’s wild claims ave shown to be bunk, so we can indulge a bit, no? Hey, I’ll give you Sandy Berger as a fuckwit, but the “Joe Wilson lies” meme has already been roundly [debunked](http://http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266328) here. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/23 "2004-07-27T02:39:42Z")
Shove it? People are shocked; shocked I tell ya! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/24 "2004-07-27T02:42:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Funny you should bring that up today. According to the Public Editor’s column,[Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html), in yesterday’s Week in Review section, it is accurate: Wow, so the N.Y. Times covers gay people somewhat sympathetically and without bashing them…Big f-ing deal. That doesn’t change the fact that they published [Judith Miller’s fictional accounts](http://slate.msn.com/id/2087735/). Or that they wrote things in the lead-up to the Iraq war that said that Saddam had claimed that the UNSCOM team had been spying on him while neglecting to inform their readers that this had actually been reported as fact, based on U.N. and U.S. government officials, by several major U.S. papers including the N.Y. Times itself back in 1999. [Here](http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html) is how FAIR explained it at the time (i.e., during the run-up to the war): > [@](#): > > Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. “United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors,” the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. “infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency.” Undercover U.S. agents “carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq’s intelligence apparatus and track the movement of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to U.S. and U.N. sources,” wrote the Boston Globe (1/6/99). > > Each of the three news stories ran on the papers’ front pages. At first, U.S. officials tried to deny them, but as more details emerged, “spokesmen for the CIA, Pentagon, White House and State Department declined to repeat any categorical denials” (Washington Post, 3/2/99). By the spring of 1999, the UNSCOM spying reported by the papers was accepted as fact by other outlets, and even defended; “Experts say it is naive to believe that the United States and other governments would not have used the opportunity presented by the U.N. commission to spy on a country that provoked the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and that has continued to tangle with U.S. and British forces,” USA Today reported (3/3/99). > > But now that the Bush administration has placed the inspectors at the center of its rationale for going to war, these same papers have become noticeably queasy about recalling UNSCOM’s past spying. The spy scandal badly damaged the credibility of the inspections process, especially after reports that data collected through UNSCOM were later used to pick targets in the December 1998 bombing of Iraq: “National security insiders, blessed with their unprecedented intelligence bonanza from UNSCOM, convinced themselves that bombing Saddam Hussein’s internal apparatus would drive the Iraqi leader around the bend,” wrote Washington Post analyst William Arkin (1/17/99). > > Suddenly, facts that their own correspondents confirmed three years ago in interviews with top U.S. officials are being recycled as mere allegations coming from Saddam Hussein’s regime. > > The UNSCOM team, explained the New York Times’ Barbara Crossette in an August 3 story, was replaced “after Mr. Hussein accused the old commission of being an American spy operation and refused to deal with it.” She gave no hint that Saddam’s “accusation” was reported as fact by her Times colleague, Tim Weiner, in a front-page story three years earlier. > > … In case there was any doubt, since then Hans Blix has also confirmed that the UNSCOM inspections regime had spied on Iraq. [Here](http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/nyt.html) is a link to FAIR’s page of articles on other beefs that FAIR (a liberal media watchdog group) has had with their coverage over the years. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/25 "2004-07-27T02:47:05Z")
> [@lambchops](#): > > Hey, I’ll give you Sandy Berger as a fuckwit, but the “Joe Wilson lies” meme has already been roundly [debunked](http://http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266328) here. Bad link…Make that [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=266328). ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/26 "2004-07-27T03:27:31Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > You mean the editorial page, or the stuff that gets published off the AP wire and into the paper? I mean the whole thing, from the headlines to the last dot of ink on the last page. See for example this characterization from a story in the [Post Gazette](http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20010208trib6.asp): > [@](#): > > The report, which reaches newsstands next week, says that unlike other newspaper publishers, “Scaife … has spread his editorial influence over the entire product, from the news pages to the editorials to the lifestyle section. If some of Scaife’s views weren’t so enigmatic – and others so extreme – perhaps the results wouldn’t be so remarkable.” > [@](#): > > Well, we can debate all day, but if anyone would like to decide for themselves whether the actual news articles in the paper are ‘extremely conservative’, here’s the [Tribune Review Online](http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/). Yes, people should judge for themselves, but I am honestly a bit shocked to find someone who actually lives (or at least purports to live here) who doesn’t regard the Trib as having a conservative bias. I guess we all have our blind spots. > [@](#): > > Where did you read that? Well, I didn’t read it, at least at first. It was told to me by a reporter at KQV who lives next door to me. I later read about it in the City Paper, IIRC, when it was “In Pgh” or whatever the title of the prior iteration was. However, it is referenced in the same Post Gazette story I linked to above. > [@](#): > > Tribune-Review Publisher Richard Mellon Scaife ordered editors to keep coverage involving the Pittsburgh Pirates off the front page and once dispatched a reporter to northern Pennsylvania to follow up a tip that the Russian military had invaded Allegheny National Forest, according to a report in an upcoming issue of Brill’s Content magazine. Also, another anecdote about how Scaife’s bias affects the coverage, although I lost the link for it during my search: > [@](#): > > According to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, “In the final days of the 2000 presidential campaign, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publisher Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime conservative activist, ordered all photographs and prominent mentions of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore removed from the front page of the paper. As a result, the paper’s pre-election Sunday edition had a front page featuring George W. Bush in every campaign-related headline and photograph. A story about a Gore rally held in Pittsburgh, originally slated to run alongside a Bush piece on the front page, was moved to the inside of the paper. According to an account in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (11/8/00). Tribune-Review managing editor Robert Fryer ‘tried to dissuade Scaife but was overruled.’” ---
**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:** [July 27, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/27 "2004-07-27T03:28:37Z")
I meant to add that KQV is also owned by Scaife. At least, he is the majority shareholder of the company that does own it. ---
**Author:** ![Bambi\_Hassenpfeffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Bambi\_Hassenpfeffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bambi_Hassenpfeffer)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/28 "2004-07-27T03:44:42Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Judith Miller Thank you for the link. In your earlier post, you called her Judith Martin, and all I could think was, “Why on earth would Miss Manners weigh in on the situation in Iraq?” 😕 I wanted to see the articles you were talking about, but I couldn’t search with Judith Martin. Now I can, so thanks! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/29 "2004-07-27T05:47:20Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Wow, so the N.Y. Times covers gay people somewhat sympathetically and without bashing them…Big f-ing deal. That doesn’t change the fact that they published [Judith Miller’s fictional accounts](http://slate.msn.com/id/2087735/)… You didn’t read the whole piece if that’s all you got out of it. I don’t think the Public Editor is claiming that ALL of the reporting is biased, just that the scales tip more in the liberal direction. FOX News has a number of liberals on their staff-- are you therefore willing to call that network unbiased? At any rate, I think the P.E. is well positioned to make the judgement call. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/30 "2004-07-27T15:40:38Z")
> [@KRM](#): > > Even if we (as ordinary readers) concede that the newspaper in question is conservative (which, from your description, doesn’t sound like much of a concession), my question remains, at what point is it appropriate for an unnamed AP writer to characterize the political leanings of another outlet? OK, if the AP labeled the editorial writer and paper as “conservative” in a straight news report it was improper. It was also wrong for other news organizations to pick up and pass on the term “conservative.” Why try to defend something that isn’t really good journalism? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/31 "2004-07-27T16:22:59Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > OK, if the AP labeled the editorial writer and paper as “conservative” in a straight news report it was improper. It was also wrong for other news organizations to pick up and pass on the term “conservative.” Why try to defend something that isn’t really good journalism? If it’s factually true that a newspaper takes a specific editorial stance then why is it bad journalism to say so? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/32 "2004-07-27T16:41:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If it’s factually true that a newspaper takes a specific editorial stance then why is it bad journalism to say so? AP didn’t back up its characterization, which was extraneous to the news report anyway. I think it is always best in straight news to avoid characterizations. The straight news is that Heinz-Kerry and a reporter had a confrontation and she said he misquoted her and told him to shove it. If you believe the newsman’s political view is important to the story I won’t argue the point. Differences in taste are why they make ice cream in all those different flavors. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/33 "2004-07-27T17:11:59Z")
> [@](#): > > **Hentor the Barbarian** said: > Yes, people should judge for themselves, but I am honestly a bit shocked to find someone who actually lives (or at least purports to live here) who doesn’t regard the Trib as having a conservative bias. I guess we all have our blind spots. I am not about to judge the Trib’s ability to cover news stories based upon their editorial page which is supposed to be opinion any more than I will judge the Washington Observer-Reporter or the Pittsburgh Post Gazette for the same. It’s the meat of the news that should be unbiased, and in most cases every outlet has some reporters that lean one way, some that lean another. I don’t think the Trib is overly conservative in its handling of _actual news_. As for whether or not I actually live in the area or I’m just lying: I currently live near Washington, PA. I spent three years living in South Oakland and two years living in Shadyside. I read the article you linked. There are quite a lot of unnamed sources and opinions, but I can find it reasonable to say that Scaife himself has a heavy conservative bias. I cannot say, however, that the Trib is merely a ‘conservative rag’ and that it should be automatically labeled as such by an anonymous AP writer who is apparently using the word to cause prejudice regarding the Trib such to lend additional favor to the comments of Theresa Heinz-Kerry. Mrs. Kerry was well within her rights to tell any reporter to ‘shove it’ and we don’t need to have the AP labeling the media outlet she made the comment to as ‘conservative’ to support her right to tell them to STFU. It’s also worth noting, at least to me, that the Trib and the PG are ‘rival papers’ in Pittsburgh. It’s not a terribly large city, and there are two major daily papers there. I get them both, read through them both, but because they are rival papers, I cannot take as literal fact the opinion of one paper that the other paper publishes. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/34 "2004-07-27T19:02:44Z")
This is as good a time as any to ask: What is a conservative’s idea of what an unbiased media outlet should be like? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/35 "2004-07-27T19:38:55Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > FOX News has a number of liberals on their staff-- are you therefore willing to call that network unbiased? When [over 70% of their guests and authorities are conservative,](http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html) hell yeah. And besides, having “liberals on their staff” doesn’t mean much, if they’re all relegated to sweeping the floors and operating the keg lights. > [@sqweels](#): > > This is as good a time as any to ask: What is a conservative’s idea of what an unbiased media outlet should be like? Why, 100% uncritical of the nation and of Republican leaders, of course! Anything less than that is _obviously_ a case of bias and jealousy on the part of the media. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![beergeek279](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7ea924/32.png) [@beergeek279](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beergeek279)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/36 "2004-07-27T19:52:27Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Why, 100% uncritical of the nation and of Republican leaders, of course! Anything less than that is _obviously_ a case of bias and jealousy on the part of the media. 😉 Well, then, I don’t quite think that would be the Tribune-Review, as some of their more libertarian/true conservative (personally, I’ve always thought Bush was 100% neocon) columnists have written articles very critical of the Bush Administration and especially John Ashcroft. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/37 "2004-07-27T21:06:16Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > When [over 70% of their guests and authorities are conservative,](http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/special-report.html) hell yeah. You missed the point entirely. Go back to **jshore’s** post that the NYT could not be considered “liberal” because it published articles by “conservatives”. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/38 "2004-07-27T21:29:18Z")
> [@](#): > > **sqweels** said: > This is as good a time as any to ask: What is a conservative’s idea of what an unbiased media outlet should be like? I’m not much of a conservative, but I think my idea is: totally unbiased cannot exist so long as human beings write the articles. What I find ‘good’ in a news source is if they keep the opinions separated from the news stories as much as possible, and they can put on the editorial page whatever the hell they want. I prefer to see coverage of all major events, and think that (although this might be totally unfeasible) in matters that get partisan, having two writers, one from each side, collaborate on an article would be nice. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/39 "2004-07-27T21:39:01Z")
I’m still not getting this: Why, oh why, is the labeling of some or other media outlet as “liberal” or “conservative” tantamount to slander? What on Earth is the cause for such protestation of the obvious? I mean, does anyone out there actually believe that there’s no slant in news reporting, or that an entire paper cannot have a characteristic slant? Are there not editors, who, last time I checked, are human beings, with all the partisan baggage your average human being totes? I used to sometimes read the Manchester, NH Union Leader, which basically prides itself on its fairly extreme conservative slant, and I get the Boston Sunday Globe each week, which itself is hardly guiltless of left-leaning partisanship. Sure, when you read your average “he did this at this time and in this place” kind of reporting, it’s all facts and figures; but wherever there is room for interpretation, reporters and editors fill it with their own ideological bias. There’s no such thing as “fair and balanced” news, which is why it’s important to get is much information as you can from various sources. Anyone who claims different is being disingenuous or fatuous; and to expect anything more of the news media is incredibly naive. As stated above, _there’s nothing to see here_. Move along. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983/40 "2004-07-27T22:09:23Z")
**Catsix** : > [@](#): > > I’m not much of a conservative, but I think my idea is: totally unbiased cannot exist so long as human beings write the articles. Probably true, but a large-scale profesional news organization ought to be able to come close. > [@](#): > > What I find ‘good’ in a news source is if they keep the opinions separated from the news stories as much as possible, and they can put on the editorial page whatever the hell they want. Fair enough. What’s your take on CNN, the 3 major network’s news reporting, etc.? > [@](#): > > I prefer to see coverage of all major events, and think that (although this might be totally unfeasible) in matters that get partisan, having two writers, one from each side, collaborate on an article would be nice. Hmmm… When it come to the horse race between D’s and R’s, the news should avoid favoring one or another. But when it comes to controversial issues where one side is blatantly biased–gay issues for example–they shouldn’t be given credibility they don’t deserve. I somtimes suspect that, in the guise of porviding “balance”–they’ll quote a conservative as if to say, “Here’s what a whacko thinks”. That would be unfair if there were non-whacko conservative that are being ignored, but how often are there these days? 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shove-it-and-media-labeling/256983.md?page=3)