Anyone surprised that reporters cheered when Rove resigned?

[mountain guru]

Seattle Editor Declares, Keep Political Views to Yourself -- Then Responds to Reaction

By E&P Staff

Published: August 15, 2007 10:15 AM ET updated 4:00 PM ET

NEW YORK No matter what you think of Karl Rove -- or anyone else in politics -- please keep it to yourself, or at least falrly quiet. That was the message in a note sent to staffers at the Seattle Times by Executive Editor Dave Boardman after what he called "an awkward moment at yesterday's news meeting."

What happened? According to Boardman in the latest email installment of what he calls "Dave's Raves" it was this: "When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom....As we head into a major political year, now's a good time to remember: Please keep your personal politics to yourself."

The incident was described in a blog by chief political reporter David Postman. He comments: "I wasn't there, but I've talked to several people who were. It was only a couple of people who cheered and they, thankfully, are not among the people who get a say in news play. But obviously news staff shouldn't be cheering or jeering the day's news, particularly as Boardman points out, 'when we have an outside guest in the room.'

"Jokes get made in newsrooms, of course — even what you would call gallows humor. And Boardman wrote that he was 'all for equal-opportunity joking at both parties' expense.' But he was clearly ticked off by yesterday's display."
**

After the episode gained a lot of Web play, Boardman sent the following in another "Dave's Raves" today.
**

My Raves admonition on politically based cheering in the newsroom has ignited the predictable flame-throwing in the blogosphere, particularly from the portside. Allow me to riff a bit further on that, and on my reasoning....

The postings nearly everywhere speak not to the fundamental issues around newsroom decorum, but instead spring from one's place on the spectrum of Bush/Rove "Bad" or Bush/Rove "Good."

I ask you all to leave your personal politics at the front door for one simple reason: A good newsroom is a sacred and magical place in which we can and should test every assumption, challenge each other's thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook.

If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists.

But if we allowed our news meetings to evolve into a liberal latte klatch, I have no doubt that a pathological case of group-think would soon set in. One of the advances of which I’m most proud over the years is our willingness to question and challenge each other as we work to give our readers the most valuable, meaningful journalism we can.

The result: A newspaper that is known nationally for aggressive watchdog and investigative reporting, without fear or favor. From a Democratic United States senator (Brock Adams) to our region's biggest employer (Boeing) to a large advertiser (Nordstrom) to our school districts and courts and police, we have confronted them all with tough questions to which they had no good answers. The result has been a better community, laws changed, lives saved.

It’s not about "balance," which is a false construct. It isn't even about "objectivity," which is a laudable but probably unattainable goal. It is about independent thinking and sound, facts-based journalism -- the difference between what we do and the myopic screed that is passed off as "advocacy" journalism these days.

[ August 15, 2007, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: mountain guru ]

[Diplomat]

Given E & P's leftist tilt, I'm pleasantly surprised they ran this piece.

We've had a few newsroom "campaigners" over the years and they had to be told to knock it off. Two of them even had stickers on their cars, which they sometimes drove on official business. One of the "campaigners" later ran for office on a socialist platform and thankfully was clobbered.

[2:30]

The operative phrases: ""I wasn't there, but I've talked to several people who were. It was only a couple of people who cheered and they, thankfully, are not among the people who get a say in news play."

[Produce man]

But guru, didn't you know? There's no liberal bias. ;)

[mountain guru]

The operative phrases: ""I wasn't there, but I've talked to several people who were. It was only a couple of people who cheered and they, thankfully, are not among the people who get a say in news play." I just love how you (and some other libs) come to a conclusion, doubting the credibility of the source and the validity of the story.

The ultimate source was the Seattle Times editor... who was a witness, and he was upset that his people cheered....and he was the one that went public with HIS displeasure in this journal, after the incident was publicized by another source. At least the editor is honest.

Another case of "hitting a liberal nerve" with the light of truth....!
BUSTED! graemlins/moon.gif

[ August 15, 2007, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: mountain guru ]

[Lazlo Toth]

It is one of the reasons I came to dislike election night in the newsroom. It doesn't matter for whom you cheer, or against whom you cheer. It's not appropriate in the newsroom if it's a political reaction.

I believe in a simple rule: no cheering in the press box.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
Given E & P's leftist tilt, I'm pleasantly surprised they ran this piece.E&P has a "leftist tilt"? What do you base that on?

[Diplomat]

Story selection--more than a few of the stories on the website have little or nothing to do with the newspaper industry. Also, its writers label groups as "conservative" much more often than they do "liberal." E & P has good information on the newspaper industry but it should stick to that.

[FD2BLK]

A couple of years ago, Cynthia McKinney was finally bumped out of her congressional seat. A number of people in my newsroom cheered. No one expressed any remorse. By the logic of the original post that must prove a right wing bias in my newsroom.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by FD2BLK:
A couple of years ago, Cynthia McKinney was finally bumped out of her congressional seat. A number of people in my newsroom cheered. No one expressed any remorse. By the logic of the original post that must prove a right wing bias in my newsroom.Not necessarily. She twice lost in primaries to opponents who were hardly conservative. They may be conservative compared to Cynthis'a Marxist beliefs, but neither Denise Majette or Hank Johnson (I think is the current Congressman's name) are right-wing.

[FD2BLK]

Not necessarily. She twice lost in primaries to opponents who were hardly conservative. They may be conservative compared to Cynthis'a Marxist beliefs, but neither Denise Majette or Hank Johnson (I think is the current Congressman's name) are right-wing.
Dip, the point is, a polarizing democrat was kicked out and the newsroom cheered. They cheered simply because she was an embarrasment to the state of Georgia and she was gone. There was no bias there.

The same goes for Rove. I don't know a single person who didn't think the time had come for him to go. It had nothing to do with right/left politics. He was just someone who had to go. Do you really think he was good for America?

[Diplomat]

In the case of McKinney, I'd bet several of your newsroom staffers had personal run-ins with her and that was why they were glad to see her go--not because of her ideology.

In the case of Rove, I doubt any of those in the newsroom who cheered had ever met the man and probably didn't know that much about him, other than all the conspiracy theories that have abounded about him. Ever since he joined the White House staff, he has been targeted by liberals and their media supporters. Cheering of this type is inappropriate in a newsroom and was in the McKinney instance, too.

[FD2BLK]

not because of her ideology.

Dip, like I said before, it had nothing to do with her ideology. She was highly polarizing and a stooge. She needed to go. Ideology was not a factor.

As for Rove...I've heard some pretty wacky conspiracies about the guy. The most outrageous I laugh at or ignore. Do you really think he was good for America? I don't. Not due to any partisan stance, but to his actions.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by FD2BLK:
not because of her ideology.

Dip, like I said before, it had nothing to do with her ideology. She was highly polarizing and a stooge. She needed to go. Ideology was not a factor.

As for Rove...I've heard some pretty wacky conspiracies about the guy. The most outrageous I laugh at or ignore. Do you really think he was good for America? I don't. Not due to any partisan stance, but to his actions.Rove wasn't "bad" or "good" for America. He was a President's adviser, not an elected official. I don't believe half the stuff I've heard about him.

I believe the cheering in Seattle was ideological.I'd be willing to bet these people didn't know him or that much about him.

Do you think newsroom cheering is appropriate?

[Dap]

Could it be they cheered because they no longer have to deal with him? I hear he's quite the *******.

[FD2BLK]

Do you think newsroom cheering is appropriate? Only if it's the Superbowl or World Series. :D

Lets be honest, you're going to have people in your newsroom who are happy because a certain democrat or a certain republican leaves. It's going to happen and I wouldn't care. Loud boisterous celebrations have no place in a newsroom.

Do you think Guru would be equally upset if he walked into my newsroom when McKinney got the boot? I highly doubt it.

[Pro]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
I don't believe half the stuff I've heard about him.Of course you don't.

Tell me, how do you feel about his imfamous "push poll" that wrecked John McCain's chances in South Carolina in 2000? Where voters were asked " IF McCain fathered an illegitamate bi-racial child, would they be less likely to vote for him?"

That was typical Rove.

[Diplomat]

If he did that, it's a dirty thing he did. Unfortunately, that is what politics has become. I also look at how James Carville behaved toward Bob Casey, the man who helped him become successful, or how Mary Mapes communicated with the Kerry campaign when she was producing her infamous journalistic fraud, or how Nina Totenberg cooperated with feminist and hate groups attacking Clarence Thomas. Or how Gore Jr's people ran with unsubstantiated rumors about G.W. Bush, or how Gore Jr. claimed his work got people sent to jail, which didn't happen, yet his lie was used against one of the men who was trying to regain public office. Gore was asked to retract and declined. Or how campaign consultants for a politician in my city spread the rumor that his opponent was Jewish in hopes of stirring up anti-Jewish sentiment. (That last one didn't quite work because of the good people here.) We could go on and on--this crap happens on both sides.

Media should not be cheering on political issues in a newsroom. Period.

[Pro]

I should have know.

"But...but...what about......"

It's you M.O. :rolleyes:

[foxravens]

Dip and other conservatives on the board.

It's reprehensible that the newsroom in question broke out into cheers, I want to get that out of the way right off the top.

However...the distaste for Rove just might go beyond party lines in this case. Did it ever occur to you that they were just happy he's gone, politics aside?
He is seen as the evil genius who sold this country a flawed administration not just once but twice, using questionable tactics both times. He also was implicated in the Plume scandal as well as the US Attorney massacre. His politics divided this nation, and made us the emerging focus of evil to the rest of the world.
I know you cons don't really care what the rest of the world thinks, but we'd better find a way to get along. We won't survive otherwise.

To me, republicans ought to be applauding, too..and I'm sure there were some in that Seattle newsroom.

I even have a kind of twisted admiration for Rove. As I've said many times, I wish MY side had one just like him...I wish we had a Rush, too.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by Pro:
I should have know.

"But...but...what about......"

It's you M.O. :rolleyes: Maureen O'Hara?
http://www.geocities.com/shamrock3477/maureenoharatribute.jpg

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by foxravens:
Dip and other conservatives on the board.

It's reprehensible that the newsroom in question broke out into cheers, I want to get that out of the way right off the top.

However...the distaste for Rove just might go beyond party lines in this case. Did it ever occur to you that they were just happy he's gone, politics aside?
He is seen as the evil genius who sold this country a flawed administration not just once but twice, using questionable tactics both times. He also was implicated in the Plume scandal as well as the US Attorney massacre. His politics divided this nation, and made us the emerging focus of evil to the rest of the world.
I know you cons don't really care what the rest of the world thinks, but we'd better find a way to get along. We won't survive otherwise.

To me, republicans ought to be applauding, too..and I'm sure there were some in that Seattle newsroom.

I even have a kind of twisted admiration for Rove. As I've said many times, I wish MY side had one just like him...I wish we had a Rush, too.Your post proves that you can't separate your dislike for Karl Rove from politics ... unless you know him personally, it HAS to be rooted in your impression of his public, POLITICAL persona. And since that's the case, any kind of public reaction ... cheering or jeering ... while you're ON THE JOB, is wrong. You act like this guy was Hitler/Pol Pot and Jack the Ripper all wrapped up into one person. Rove was the convenient whipping boy/boogeyman for libs for a long time ... and your obsession with him is both laughable and sad. I'm not saying he hasn't been influential ... but libs assign him much more worth than he deserves.

[foxravens]

OK, since we appear to be sparring partners today, I'd be glad to respond.

First, I stated clearly that the newsroom cheering was reprehensible. I'm sure you read that, right off the top.

Secondly, I fail to understand your point about "separating my dislike for Rove from politics."
I am a political man and do an awful lot of reading on the subject. Rove's actions are not open to interpretation, there are actual facts involved here, and to use your own words, your attempt to defend him "is both laughable and sad".

Thirdly, I do not know Rove, that's true.
Do you?

Finally, how did you arrive at your hypothesis that "the libs assign him much more worth than he deserves"?
Answer: I don't think you can. I really don't.

I do congratulate you on your loyalty, though.
The Bush ship is rapidly slipping below the waves and you remain tied to the mast.
Huzzah, sir!

[ August 16, 2007, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: foxravens ]

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by foxravens:
OK, since we appear to be sparring partners today, I'd be glad to respond.

First, I stated clearly that the newsroom cheering was reprehensible. I'm sure you read that, right off the top.

Secondly, I fail to understand your point about "separating my dislike for Rove from politics."
I am a political man, though and do an awful lot of reading on the subject. Rove's actions are not open to interpretation, and to use your own words, your attempt to defend him "is both laughable and sad".

Thirdly, I do not know Rove, that's true.
Do you?

Finally, how did you arrive at your hypothesis that "the libs assign him much more worth than he deserves"?
Answer: I don't think you can. I really don't.

I do congratulate you on your loyalty, though.
The Bush ship is slipping below the waves rapidly and you remain tied to the mast.
Huzzah, sir!You attempted to justify their cheering because you believe their dislike transcends party lines and you attempted to 'prove' that by reciting the laundry list of things the left alleges he's responsible for. If you're as well-read as you claim to be, you'd certainly know that Rove's -- indeed EVERYONE's-- actions are open to interpretation. Throwing blanket statements on the argument doesn't snuff out the other side ... although I'm sure that's the case in the simplistic liberal mind. Despite what you may think, not everyone in this country hates Karl Rove. You and all your circle of lib friends might, but in the real world, it's just not true, no matter how much you desperately want it to be. And your own posts prove my point about how much value libs assign to Rove ... you have him single-handedly destroying the world and America in the process.

Sparring partners today? En garde!

[Diplomat]

Bottom line: no cheering in the newsroom. I am with foxravens and most others on this. I do not think our other liberals had a problem with is. I am very confident they would have had a problem if someone had cheered over the resignation or whatever of one of their sacred cows.

[foxravens]

Very true, and I'm apparently too stupid to understand much else.

[Clever Login Name]

Then there's this, from Newsbusters:

MSNBC Newsroom Booed Bush State of the Union
By Mark Finkelstein | August 16, 2007 - 06:36 ET
UPDATE: Joe and Mika discuss this NB item. See below.

Joe Scarborough has pulled back the curtain on the liberal bias at MSNBC, describing an incident in which people in its newsroom ceaselessly booed President Bush during a State of the Union address.

The revelation came on "Morning Joe" today at 6:02 A.M. EDT. Joe was discussing a recent episode at the Seattle Times in which reporters and editors cheered the news that Karl Rove had resigned. Scarborough applauded Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman for issuing a memorandum reproving his colleagues. For more, read NB items by Brent Baker and Ken Shepherd.

Joe went on to describe a similar incident at MSNBC.

View video here. Note: that's newsreader Mika Brzezinksi heard murmuring in assent, though one has to wonder just how thrilled she was by Joe's candor in outing her fellow MSNBC liberals.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it's transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that's bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.

And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said "how was it last night?" Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on. He said "how was it last night?" I said "well, it's OK, I understand it's a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively booing the President of the United States. Phil turned red very quickly. That didn't happen again.

Great news: the MSNBC newsroom no longer actively boos the President! But did Griffin replace any of the offenders and bring in professionals, or is MSNBC still staffed by people who simply do their booing on the inside -- and in the news choices they make?

[and123]

What's surprising to me is that the Seattle Times actually employs two people who would take pleasure in Rove's resignation.

Meanwhile, over at the Post-Intelligencer: champagne corks all around.

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by foxravens:
Very true, and I'm apparently too stupid to understand much else.Nah--you're not stupid. There are a few on this board I might describe that way, but you would not be among them.

[foxravens]

Thanks.
Clever doesn't think so, but that's ok.
For the record: I do not think people who disagree with me are stupid.
Misguided, maybe...but not stupid.

Unlike our friend Clever.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by foxravens:
Thanks.
Clever doesn't think so, but that's ok.
For the record: I do not think people who disagree with me are stupid.
Misguided, maybe...but not stupid.

Unlike our friend Clever.I don't think you're stupid because I disagree with you.

I think you're stupid for disagreeing with me.
tongue.gif

[Another side]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
Story selection--more than a few of the stories on the website have little or nothing to do with the newspaper industry. Also, its writers label groups as "conservative" much more often than they do "liberal." E & P has good information on the newspaper industry but it should stick to that.Well, I've been an avid reader of E&P for a lot of years and I never noticed that. So I went to its website just now ... it's here (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/index.jsp)

There not a single, non-newspaper-industry story on there.

[foxravens]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by foxravens:
Thanks.
Clever doesn't think so, but that's ok.
For the record: I do not think people who disagree with me are stupid.
Misguided, maybe...but not stupid.

Unlike our friend Clever.I don't think you're stupid because I disagree with you.

I think you're stupid for disagreeing with me.
tongue.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, that's it.
Thanks!

[Diplomat]

Originally posted by Another side:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Diplomat:
Story selection--more than a few of the stories on the website have little or nothing to do with the newspaper industry. Also, its writers label groups as "conservative" much more often than they do "liberal." E & P has good information on the newspaper industry but it should stick to that.Well, I've been an avid reader of E&P for a lot of years and I never noticed that. So I went to its website just now ... it's here (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/index.jsp)

There not a single, non-newspaper-industry story on there.</font>[/QUOTE]Technically, you're correct. But in some of the stories, they were stretching to relate it to the newspaper business. Their story selection also betrays a leftward tilt--not as bad as the NY or LA Times, but left-leaning. It also labels groups as "conservative" more than it does "liberal." Either label all groups or none.

[CKMD]

I see....so, we're robots who can't have opinions about things.
It doesn't matter if they cheered or booed unless it got into their stories.
If you can PROVE THAT, then there is a liberal bias. But you can't, therefore, there isn't.

Now, when it comes to story selection, the reason the idea "liberal bias" comes around is because of where we get our stories.
Conservatives, for the most part, do not want information to get out.
Period. There's no argument about this.
Liberals want it all out.
So, when we do stories, that mostly come from liberal sources, we're labeled liberal despite the fact that they are balanced and we went to the other side to get information.

That's why "liberal media bias" is an old cliche used by conservatives who'd rather not have freedom of the press.

[ August 16, 2007, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: CKMD ]

[Diplomat]

No, it's not about stories getting out. It's about stories NOT getting out. And it's about the mindset of those who report.

In my city, there are various conflicts of interest that are almost never reported. Certain groups and "community activists" and leaders get a free ride all too often. One local publication let its political writer continue to write nice things about a local politician in the time between it was announced the writer was going to work for that politician and the time he left. Another local newspaperman regularly writes glowing columns about officials who have appointed his wife to judicial positions. Yet, the newspaper never mentions that. Or how the newspaper cooperates with certain "advocacy" groups. That's a no-no, too, in my book.

When I worked in public broadcasting, one of our managers said story selection was what led people to think there was a bias and he said they do have a point. He said it is imperative that we talk to ALL sides and get ALL sides of a story so we can demonstrate we strive for fairness. I've known a few reporters who had definite opinions of what a story should be and would never talk to any source that might question or disagree with their conclusions.

We had an activist in our newsroom several years ago who tried to tell each of us what to ask at news conferences and how to write our stories. We found out she spent her spare time going to protests and involved in causes, and we simply could not have her radicalism damage our organization's credibility.

I think most journalists are fair. Some are liberal, some are conservative and some are something else.

[2:30]

It's all a conspiracy, twink. You're not one of the "in" crowd. Oh, well...

It doesn't matter for whom you cheer, or against whom you cheer. It's not appropriate in the newsroom if it's a political reaction.
I'd go one step further. No cheering in the newsroom period, unless it's for beating the crap out of the competition, or good news for a co-worker.

[CKMD]

BS.
Your hometown teams wins a National Championship, World Series, Super Bowl, you can cheer.
Give me a break.
The President says something stupid, you can booo.
You just don't express those opinions to the readers/viewers when putting together stories.

How hard is that to comprehend!?

[foxravens]

Originally posted by CKMD:
BS.
Your hometown teams wins a National Championship, World Series, Super Bowl, you can cheer.
Give me a break.
The President says something stupid, you can booo.
You just don't express those opinions to the readers/viewers when putting together stories.

How hard is that to comprehend!?Sounds about right to me.......

[Diplomat]

I think the editor's main problem with the cheering was that an outside guest was present.

[NYC Street]

Cheering (or jeering) is just fine. Except when it's found in your story.

[Kace]

There is no Liberal Media. There is no Conservative Media. There is no spoon. There is no Matrix. There is only Rio.

[Clever Login Name]

Originally posted by foxravens:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CKMD:
BS.
Your hometown teams wins a National Championship, World Series, Super Bowl, you can cheer.
Give me a break.
The President says something stupid, you can booo.
You just don't express those opinions to the readers/viewers when putting together stories.

How hard is that to comprehend!?Sounds about right to me.......</font>[/QUOTE]Didn't you say before that what they did was reprehensible?

No cheering, period. For anything. It may be human nature, but it's also unprofessional. And there's enough unprofessionalism in newsrooms these days.

[mountain guru]

CKMD says: Conservatives, for the most part, do not want information to get out. Ask Hillary Clinton about "not wanting... information to get out"

Ask Ken Starr about not wanting information to get out.... not wanting to dig for information?

Does that make Hillary conservative? does that make Starr a liberal?

You sure can toss out the "labels" for people, but you can't back it up with fact.

graemlins/iamwithstupid.gif