Well, it was a pretty slow news day. When the lead story on CNN.COM is Patti Labelle warming up for the DNC, you have to take your outrage where you can get it.
Hey, I’ll give you Sandy Berger as a fuckwit, but the “Joe Wilson lies” meme has already been roundly debunked here.
Shove it?
People are shocked; shocked I tell ya!
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. 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 is how FAIR explained it at the time (i.e., during the run-up to the war):
In case there was any doubt, since then Hans Blix has also confirmed that the UNSCOM inspections regime had spied on Iraq.
Here 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.
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:
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.
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.
Also, another anecdote about how Scaife’s bias affects the coverage, although I lost the link for it during my search:
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
When over 70% of their guests and authorities are conservative, 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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Catsix:
Probably true, but a large-scale profesional news organization ought to be able to come close.
Fair enough. What’s your take on CNN, the 3 major network’s news reporting, etc.?
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?