Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PghUSA

PG and Trib trivia

22 posts in this topic

In response to some questioning my sanity :lol: on forming the opinion that the Trib and the P-G are both "world class" papers in Pittsburgh, I thought I'd explore the issue, I would like to know for sure if my analysis is flawed. Being a Poly-Sci. major (history minor) in college and a big web junkie, I think that some of us don't realize what jewels we have in the local papers. Given, no Pittsburgh paper is going to consistently beat out the NYT, WSJ, Globe, WPost, or LAT/ChicagoTrib, in some deep journalistic fields, however I have seen some evidence that on certain weeks the readers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review are better served then even those on Madison Avenue or Wall Street or the Midway.

The case for the Post-Gazette:

Pulitzers in 1938 (changed the Supreme Court), 1986 (changed the way transplants are preformed), 1987 (changed the way the FAA deals with air safety), 1998 (provided arguably the best picture of the Rwanda crisis).

The PG also did work IMO so good it scared away the Pulitzer prize in 1948, with the '38 winner traveling as a black man in the Jim Crow south for 30 days.

Although not credited to the P-G specifically, Post-Gazette readers woke up to two future Pulitzer reports in 1992 (arguably the first main-stream expose on Gen X) and 2004 (the national, maybe global, lighting-rod story of the U.S. SF role in Vietnam, a story that became a Presidential election issue).

That's 7 Pulitzer (well 6, but I'd like to meet the person that thinks the '38 Pultizer work of Sprigle topped his '48 odessy) stories on the doorsteps of Pittsburghers in the last 67 years. Given, the NYT and WSJ, LAT, WashPost, Globe or ChiTrib etc. can outdo that by 10x, but outside those "world-class" papers and cities, what other publication could boast that? 7 might sound unimpressive, but couple that with the excellent local reporting the PG does IMHO, the Westinghouse, Allegheny General, Welfare, UPMC, et. al. special reports (I talked with a manager of a Charles Schwab center in Florida, he found those pieces to be excellent works in high finance and corporate issues). As good as the NYT or WSJ on that? No, but we wouldn't fit in the category of a Cleveland Plain Dealer or Detroit Free Press exactly, so in my estimation we might have the greatest paper between the coasts (excluding Chicago).

Before this decade I was a strong believer in the above statement, but now I think we might have a better paper then the coasts or Chicago. The recent NYT keystone cops crap (along with the Globe), hiring, promoting and showcasing a reporter that invented the news, along with the lack of zealousness on getting the miners story right in WV this past month, convinces me that the NYT, Globe, WPost, would be great newspapers if not for their egos and hubris. I don't see the same utter failure in journalistic integrity in the PG, thus on days the Times and Globe readers are reading nursery ryhmes for news, and reading how some overpaid deadwood in the editors chair decided the bottom line was more important then the REAL news on the morning of the mine disaster (along with the WPost readers), the PG readers were getting arguably the best, most comprehensive stories on the planet.

The case for the Tribune-Review:

Where the PG is to me the local king of what makes journalism excellence, the Trib comes out somewhat as a tabloid almost, but what an earth changing one at that.

What some notable journalism professors would say is the best news photo taken in human history was snaped from a camera lense of a Tribune-Review stringer, it won a Pulitzer in 1971. Where was the NYT and WashPost, the WSJ on that day?

Although the award chest at the Trib isn't as extensive (nor is their ability to grasp and cover in broad ways multiple stories at once) as the PG's, the world would be a very very different place today if not for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Clinton's impeachment can be directly traced to stories that first saw the light of day in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review with Christopher Ruddy, more recently the expose on the Saudi connection and Clinton Library questions first was investigated not by those wannabe Woodwards on the WPost or NYT or Globe or LAT, but in Pittsburgh. Despite your political leanings you can not deny that what the Trib did in the 1990s and early 2000's was nothing short of what the Washington Post/NYT accomplished in the 1970's--an earth change in geopolitics. I won't even get started on the Theresa Heinz-Kerry reporting and the global headlines those made from a Trib reporter. What is draw-dropping amazing to me is that a paper outside the power centers of DC and Wall-Street was able to scoop and humble the political "experts" in getting the story first, getting the story right, and changing world history with it, not once but possibly as many as a half dozen times.

Being a journalistic novice (looking more through the lens of anthropology and politics), maybe I make too much of newspapers that have ushered in Civil Rights, reformed the Supreme Court, instigated modern controls on airlines and transplants, chronicled better then any other the untold story of Vietnam and the Rwanda tragedy, ushered in a global political firestorm the likes of which the world has not seen in over 150 years with its deep investigative reporting and took what is perhaps the best news photo in recorded history, but then again I think that puts us in the league of the giants in print news. The journalistic integrity displayed during the mine disaster, the deep and wide coverage of it, and the ability to evolve into a 24/7 news cycle without hiring cancers such as Michael Finkels or Jayson Blairs to compensate, makes Pittsburgh a center for news that NYT, Globe, and WashPost readers are just not being delivered.

Again I'd love someone with a better understanding of journalism and print media to set me straight if I'm all wet on this, but from a politican's or (what could be called . . .) an "archivist's" perspective, Pittsburgh rocks the world in print media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


In response to some questioning my sanity :lol: on forming the opinion that the Trib and the P-G are both "world class" papers in Pittsburgh, I thought I'd explore the issue, I would like to know for sure if my analysis is flawed. Being a Poly-Sci. major (history minor) in college and a big web junkie, I think that some of us don't realize what jewels we have in the local papers. Given, no Pittsburgh paper is going to consistently beat out the NYT, WSJ, Globe, WPost, or LAT/ChicagoTrib, in some deep journalistic fields, however I have seen some evidence that on certain weeks the readers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review are better served then even those on Madison Avenue or Wall Street or the Midway.

The case for the Post-Gazette:

Pulitzers in 1938 (changed the Supreme Court), 1986 (changed the way transplants are preformed), 1987 (changed the way the FAA deals with air safety), 1998 (provided arguably the best picture of the Rwanda crisis).

The PG also did work IMO so good it scared away the Pulitzer prize in 1948, with the '38 winner traveling as a black man in the Jim Crow south for 30 days.

Although not credited to the P-G specifically, Post-Gazette readers woke up to two future Pulitzer reports in 1992 (arguably the first main-stream expose on Gen X) and 2004 (the national, maybe global, lighting-rod story of the U.S. SF role in Vietnam, a story that became a Presidential election issue).

That's 7 Pulitzer (well 6, but I'd like to meet the person that thinks the '38 Pultizer work of Sprigle topped his '48 odessy) stories on the doorsteps of Pittsburghers in the last 67 years. Given, the NYT and WSJ, LAT, WashPost, Globe or ChiTrib etc. can outdo that by 10x, but outside those "world-class" papers and cities, what other publication could boast that? 7 might sound unimpressive, but couple that with the excellent local reporting the PG does IMHO, the Westinghouse, Allegheny General, Welfare, UPMC, et. al. special reports (I talked with a manager of a Charles Schwab center in Florida, he found those pieces to be excellent works in high finance and corporate issues). As good as the NYT or WSJ on that? No, but we wouldn't fit in the category of a Cleveland Plain Dealer or Detroit Free Press exactly, so in my estimation we might have the greatest paper between the coasts (excluding Chicago).

Before this decade I was a strong believer in the above statement, but now I think we might have a better paper then the coasts or Chicago. The recent NYT keystone cops crap (along with the Globe), hiring, promoting and showcasing a reporter that invented the news, along with the lack of zealousness on getting the miners story right in WV this past month, convinces me that the NYT, Globe, WPost, would be great newspapers if not for their egos and hubris. I don't see the same utter failure in journalistic integrity in the PG, thus on days the Times and Globe readers are reading nursery ryhmes for news, and reading how some overpaid deadwood in the editors chair decided the bottom line was more important then the REAL news on the morning of the mine disaster (along with the WPost readers), the PG readers were getting arguably the best, most comprehensive stories on the planet.

The case for the Tribune-Review:

Where the PG is to me the local king of what makes journalism excellence, the Trib comes out somewhat as a tabloid almost, but what an earth changing one at that.

What some notable journalism professors would say is the best news photo taken in human history was snaped from a camera lense of a Tribune-Review stringer, it won a Pulitzer in 1971. Where was the NYT and WashPost, the WSJ on that day?

Although the award chest at the Trib isn't as extensive (nor is their ability to grasp and cover in broad ways multiple stories at once) as the PG's, the world would be a very very different place today if not for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Clinton's impeachment can be directly traced to stories that first saw the light of day in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review with Christopher Ruddy, more recently the expose on the Saudi connection and Clinton Library questions first was investigated not by those wannabe Woodwards on the WPost or NYT or Globe or LAT, but in Pittsburgh. Despite your political leanings you can not deny that what the Trib did in the 1990s and early 2000's was nothing short of what the Washington Post/NYT accomplished in the 1970's--an earth change in geopolitics. I won't even get started on the Theresa Heinz-Kerry reporting and the global headlines those made from a Trib reporter. What is draw-dropping amazing to me is that a paper outside the power centers of DC and Wall-Street was able to scoop and humble the political "experts" in getting the story first, getting the story right, and changing world history with it, not once but possibly as many as a half dozen times.

Being a journalistic novice (looking more through the lens of anthropology and politics), maybe I make too much of newspapers that have ushered in Civil Rights, reformed the Supreme Court, instigated modern controls on airlines and transplants, chronicled better then any other the untold story of Vietnam and the Rwanda tragedy, ushered in a global political firestorm the likes of which the world has not seen in over 150 years with its deep investigative reporting and took what is perhaps the best news photo in recorded history, but then again I think that puts us in the league of the giants in print news. The journalistic integrity displayed during the mine disaster, the deep and wide coverage of it, and the ability to evolve into a 24/7 news cycle without hiring cancers such as Michael Finkels or Jayson Blairs to compensate, makes Pittsburgh a center for news that NYT, Globe, and WashPost readers are just not being delivered.

Again I'd love someone with a better understanding of journalism and print media to set me straight if I'm all wet on this, but from a politican's or (what could be called . . .) an "archivist's" perspective, Pittsburgh rocks the world in print media.

PghUSA, I think that the PG is a good paper, in some aspects excellent, but as with most regional papers, they are simply not in depth as the Post or Times on nat'l/int'l issues and that's fine (the PG's editorial page is often particularly good). I think they do better than others. I also think that they have very good local coverage - I'm not talking about fires and murders like TV news, but local development and regional problems.

The Trib on the other hand, is not so good. First, it is still the Westmoreland paper and that is fine. However their inherent disdain for the city and to that, I say stay in Greensburg then.

Despite your political leanings you can not deny that what the Trib did in the 1990s and early 2000's was nothing short of what the Washington Post/NYT accomplished in the 1970's--an earth change in geopolitics.

Oh but the Scaife Review's great "investigative journalism" is anything but investigative journalism.

To Scaife, the trib is just another resource for his Arkansas Project.

In 1999, The Wash Post reported that Scaife feared that he was the target of a Las Vegas man, who often criticized him on the Internet (sounds like there was probably more to it than that...)

The critic did actually show up at Scaife's office though, with a gun. Obviously something was very wrong going on. I don't know or remember all of the details, but what's even more fascinating is that the man was found dead in the same building and it was ruled a suicide (maybe it was self defense and the guy was nuts - Scaife does have the right, obviously, to protect himself).

The PG reported on this and what did the Trib have to say about the PG's reporting?

The Trib called the reporter a "Scaife hater" and that the dead man was "an unstable man who became fully unhinged (and) pushed over the top by liberals...who joined the Clinton White House and their friends to demonize dick Scaife."

Demonize Scaife? How ironic is that?

Ruddy is hack that Scaife hired from the NY Post (another fine piece of...). Scaife had his hands in multiple ventures to take down Clinton, well beyond his Westmoreland propaganda machine, including the Spectator and of course his masterpiece of creating something out of nothing, the Arkansas Project. In his crusade, many questionable people made dubious claims. Among them was Ruddy, who was debunked on 60 Minutes as a fraud who made up evidence.

Ruddy, promoting his own "work" to the right, had this to say back in the crusades: "I declare to you that America may face a greater crisis now under Clinton that it did during the the bloody civil war under Lincoln."

"That's why I tremble for the future of this country..." blah blah blah...

Ruddy's bogus claims were picked in another credible news outlet, the 700 Club... then Limbaugh.. and so forth.

Is this what we want? This would be a joke, if not so harmful to journalism, and well, reality.

Now, sure, yes they reported on PNC 3 and other local stories with the typical who, what, where's... I have read some other interesting developments of the years and even scoops on business new... and you can get your Stiller fix I suppose, but the meat of a paper is this stuff, and if it is nothing more than some billionare's outlet for a crazy agenda, not only is it not worldclass, it is classless. We don't need or should we have a building of Jeff Gannon's. Should we have a newspaper with a conservative editorial page? Sure, why not? I would encourage an intellectually conservative view. I realize that the PG's editorial page is generally liberal (though not all are). But to have a print version of the Druge Report as news... doesn't make Pittsburgh look good that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mj,

Some great insights, and yes there is a Mellon-Scaife angle to the Trib.

As far as your point that the PG is a great "regional" paper but doesn't have the National or Intl. bench that a world-class needs, I would have to agree, but ask you is that even relevant in the last 25 years? I realize journalism purists and ivory tower journalism profs would insist on that measure, but this isn't the world in 1955 or even 1985 any longer. The PG arguably gave the world's best view on Rwanda as well as its first view on Gen X and a highly charged Vietnam retrospective, among other things, but again the NYT can beat that, the question is what role does a city paper have in an age of 24/7 half dozen cable news channels, the internet, Drudge, etc. The editorials I value, but the "breaking international news" business is a dead issue with print.

The PG I have always thought of as the best paper between the coasts and outside of Chicago, until Jayson Blair and the others at the NYT and Globe, and the indifference to "getting the story right" on the miners by the NYT and WashPost. For as talented as their foreign correspondents are, reading the WRONG news from a Blair or a lazy night editor more worried about his stock options then stopping the presses borders on negligence or worse. In the last 3 years or so facts such as these have convinced me that the PG is a step above all that.

~~~

As far as the Trib goes, all that you say Mj is plausible, I do have to say that I am proud that a Pittsburgh newspaper outscooped and outsourced the mighty "vanguards of public interest" Post and Times etc. The role of the press is to keep the system honest, to blow the whistle on corruption or hypocrisy, to ignore smoke of the Clinton administration is bordering on incompetence for the "world-class" papers. All that has been said on the Ruddy situation could as easily be claimed by the other side about Woodward and Bernstein or the Pentagon Papers leaker, in fact I've heard some worse things--but thats a discussion for the national politics board here at UP. What even Clinton would admit is that the stories orginiating at the Trib in the 1990s and into this decade were picked up and ran with by the Post and the NYT and other world-class papers. They were out scooped on their own turf by a "regional". Politics aside, it was the biggest newsbreak in over a generation, and led to the biggest political changes in the nation in 150 years, possibly the biggest domestic political changes to affect the world--ever. If I were speaking of one story but there are a dozen over a decade, including ones just a few years ago, that the Trib has beaten the AP, the Times, the Post, and others to. To say they are inconsequential because a Limbaugh mentions them (even though from a news perspective the Limbaughs and FoxNews' are growing in international newsworthiness while the Times and CNNs are shrinking) makes a whole lot of NYT and Washington Post stories that get discussed on talk radio as inconsequential as well.

Finally on the Trib, it is amazing to me how some rationalize it's great work as political tabloid (as mentioned above the same unfair and illogical assumptions could be made about the NYT and Washington Post, we should judge papers on more then one or two ideologues on their staff) however it is credited with what has been described as the greatest news photo ever snapped. A photo that embarrased the Nixon Whitehouse and added to the fervent against the ruling party, eventually (but ever so indirectly) leading to Watergate. The Tribune-Review has been on both sides in the last generation, and has IMO done great work on both.

The Kent State photo, blowing the lid off the largest political event in 150 years, it's great investigative work on the Saudi connections in the last 5 years, not to mention it's sometimes stellar local reporting, makes the Trib a force. Jayson Blair not working there, pushes it across the line into world class IMHO.

Interested in others thoughts on these matters, or any more trivia on the newspapers. For as much as I know about them, I am in no way a local journalism expert, so I'd love to learn more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed about the PG (and the defunct Pgh Press), however, was its reluctance to go into color even as just about every other newspaper in the country, including the long-time colorphobe NY Times, went color. Of course now they are in color but they were years late into the game. What was that about? I know color doesn't add to the substance of a paper, but it does give some insight into how the PG can be set in its ways. Similarly, the PG (and the Press before them) didn't have a good compact TV weekly until well after all the other papers got theirs. Again, its not substantive, but it does indicate a slowness in adopting new things.

Anyway, one paper I compare the PG to is the Baltimore Sun since both serve similar-sized markets (in fact, Baltimore's newspaper market may be smaller b/c its catchement zone is eclipsed by DC and Philly). The PG might have better coverage of local news (I wouldn't know since I don't read the Balt. Sun on a daily basis) but I think the Sun crushes the PG when it comes to national/world news (often writing its own articles whereas the PG often relies on the AP or other papers to supply articles). Granted, if all I was looking for was national/world news, I'd turn to the NY Times and not the Balt. Sun. However, comparing what should be two comaparable papers, I think the Sun wins on the national/world front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PG often relies on the AP or other papers to supply articles

Perhaps this is due to the provincialism of Pittsburgh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urban, not a big reader of the Balt Sun, I do know some of their senior people from the political world are good quality journalists with national reps (same could be said about the PG I believe), haven't done the math on the AP stuff, so you might very well be right.

Again I have two strikes against any analysis I do on these papers, first I am looking at it from a political/historical angle, I've never spent as much as 10 min. in a journalism course (although strangely I was the news editor for a few semesters for the college rag lol), second I am viewing all this in the guise of Gen Xer who is accostumed to 24/7 news cycles that bombard us with "breaking news" every 20 min on a half dozen cable stations and thousands of internet blogs, sites, and rings. What I see as a "world-class" paper is not one that bests the AP wire (to me sort of the internet and cable before there were such things) in getting "breaking news" in depth, but a paper that can chronicle and surround a story giving you angles and expertise no blog or talking head reading copy can replace. The Baltimore Sun may have the PG beat on "breaking" print news in a more comprehensive way, but I really can't name anyone (not even my 96 year old grandad) that picks up a paper anymore for "breaking (national/intl.) news" articles.

An article on a followup, an editorial, an investigative report, now that is something I love reading the papers for--and the PG seems to have a bevy of skilled reporters who will do that on intl., national and local stories--but there's just no way I'm going to wait till 6am to get all the basic who? what? where? when? why? and how? from a Balt Sun stringer in Baghdad or Wall Street, the internet and cable will beat them to it every time. When I do pick up the Sun or the PG or Trib I really could care less if its UPI, AP or the Block family typing up the report in Iraq, it's already 12 hours stale to me. A special investigative reporter in Rwanda in the 90's? A political reporter chasing down leads (however untrue) and shedding light on the facts of a 90's White House? Now that is something that I can value in print media, that the rapid pace of cable and the wild-west quality of the blogosphere can't really out do. To me that is world-class, that and avoiding the Jayson Blairs and the abilty to TURN OFF the presses in the interest of getting the story right. Again I write this not as a rebuttal as much as it is a question. I know much about the press being around politics and history but for anyone that has spent time interning at a paper or in journalism classes or even is a amature press junkie, let me know if I got this wrong.

Urban, if this was 10 years ago or more I would agree with you 100%, and when you say reporting you might well mean to include in-depth editorials and special reports (which the PG has natl. and intl. to a great degree and the Trib has shown sparks of natl and once or twice intl.). In a world of 2006 though, the main article being authored by a Sun employee just doesn't count for much to most people I know, to much cable and internet to really pick up a paper for something that is at best 6 hours old and at worst a news eternity ago (12+ hours old).

Just my two cents, even journalistically uneducated 2 cents at that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PghUSA, I understand your enthusiasm and don't blame you for wanting the PG to be a world-class paper. But while it is a great paper, it is not "world-class," and does not need to be.

Most of what you say about Pittsburgh is correct, and you know a plethora of interesting facts, but I think in this case you are hoping for too much. I only say this because I think good arguments can become diluted when enthusiasm is extended to something which isn't quite so true. Us avid defenders of Pittsburgh should try to watch out lest we look like "blind cheer-leaders." :)

Just my 2 cents.

As for the Trib, I agree with you MJ, it isn't so good. It seems to have an agenda for putting the city down. It also seems very biased toward the conservative. I can't believe how much the writers seem to let their personal opinions seep into stories. Several times that paper has downright pissed me off. I once emailed one of the writers about a story of his I didn't like. He printed my letter and basically tried to tear it apart, but everything he said was bullcrap. We exchanged a few more emails, and I rather felt that he was a bit of a jerk and not a very logical thinker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is due to the provincialism of Pittsburgh.

Didn't we go over this already? The discussion is about two Pittsburgh papers, why would you throw that out there? Just to start another Pittsburgh vs. Seattle argument?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Tooluther, maybe I am missing something on Evergrey, but I don't think he meant anything more then what he said :).

G, I think your approach to this is very well reasoned (although I would like to see some evidence, especially from someone with a little experience in journalism classes), your opinion--as I've mentioned--was much like the one I held about five years ago. The Blair et. al. issues, as well as the seeming indifference to getting a story right on the miners and in other ways, makes me wonder how that makes the NYT or Globe or Post "World Class". The facts I cite IMO get the PG and the Trib to the party as probably the best "regionals" but I have seen the implosion of the once great Times, Globe, Post etc., if they aren't standing any longer who might be left?

As far as the Trib goes G, I do detest it some days about it's anti-city stances. I've never seen the trib do a Blair or a NYT Miner story. To be fair in its status though, I don't think you can dismiss what the Trib is to world media (possibly the best news photo ever taken, pioneering stories that changed Washington more then at any other time in the past 25 possibly 150 years, etc.) simply because you disagree with it.

To the point of letting our love for this city cloud our judgement, I couldn't agree more, and I do try to watch out for that. I know coming out with statements like the one about the Trib and PG make some judge my cred or thought process. In no jouralistic or conventional sense could the PG and Trib consistently beat out the NYT--however I feel strongly people don't read newspapers for those reasons, haven't in over a decade. To the average reader getting the mining story right or not reading a Jayson Blair fairy tale is much more important, in these every day ways I think the readers of the PG and Trib are better served (especially in the last few years) then anything the NYT or Post could muster. Again, if someone has some facts as to why journalism is based upon another maxim, or that the NYT's and Post's "issues" are not failing their readership as much as the PG not having foreign correspondents or the Trib not having enough SRs, please educate me. I really won't counter with anything, my whole fact bag is documented above, I'm just on this thread to better understand what might be happening in the world of print media in the last 5 years, from someone who might have those facts. :)

Has one great regional, and one IR excelling regional come into a league of world-class in the last 5 years, with the outright opposite stories that have appeared in the Post, NYT, Globe etc? IMO the Pittsburhg papers did much heavy lifting in the past 50 years, that got them close but not in, the fact that my NYT and Post have been as wrong as "Dewey defeats Truman" the last few years, might leave the PG and Trib as the only print with wc left standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only just started the class so I wouldn't say it qualifies me as 'having experience." But I just instinctively feel that the PG and especially the Trib, while good papers, are not on par with something like the NY Times. The Times is based in NYC but it is not a local paper, it is read all around the world. The PG and Trib are more locally-oriented, appealing mostly to Pgh-area people (or people with some connection to the region).

I do not argue with their quality, but I just would not call them "world-class." No one in, say, Beijing reads the PG unless they are from here or have a connection to Pgh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong is wrong and Trib is nothing more in stature because it breaks a FAKE story, a contrived story, or the like in terms of its owners bidding. Again if it wants to be a conservative paper fine, but I would think that most self respecting conservatives would believe that bogus stories and an agenda at the expense of true investigative journalism is not the way to go. it's not good for their cause certainly, it's not for the Pittsburgh region, nor is it good for journalism.

What the Trib did (and does) is far worse than Blair, as it is part of their culture and purpose. Blair was an idiot, but not representative of the Times staff in general.

Again, they do an ok job with local stuff and even have had some decent stories on local development, but there is NO excuse for their political agenda in the guise of news.

The Baltimore Sun does have more national focus, but I attribute that to its location near DC (the two cities blend in together with commuters etc) and many who reside in the "Baltimore" metro counties also work for the Federal Gov or policy groups.

As for the Mining story, I don't see how that is a basis to review on paper over another. it's one story.

PG often relies on the AP or other papers to supply articles

Perhaps this is due to the provincialism of Pittsburgh.

Most newspapers carry AP stories as well as stories from the NYT, Post and LA Times.

Simply, put, their purpose is larger than any one city and being in NYC or LA, with their particularly large subscriber base, they can afford significantly larger staffs.

That is why you couldn't possibly compare the Erie Times to the PG, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gerbil,

I'm thinking about auditing that course with you :D, the prof would love me :D. In all seriousness though they are legit questions, I appreciate your insight on them!

Mj,

I'd love to see if I missed a story but nothing the Trib ever reported with Heinz, Clinton or the Saudis has proven inaccurate or non-legit, also it was more then just Blair on the NYT, if you recall they stood by him for what seemed like an eternity there was also the earlier reporter I mentioned in my initial post, the Post isn't as bad on that but the mining story makes me nervous about them as well.

One last thing I wouldn't imagine people in China are reading much US media anymore after Microsoft and Google etc. are censoring websites for the commie govt. In other nations it might surprise some how many actually come to the PG or Trib through weblinks, blogs, or how many stories are picked up by the NYT or Post through most lately the Trib. The Times and Post et. al. have more intl. readers but it's been 30 years since they really scooped major political stories in the fashion the Trib has, those papers might be going on fumes over the last generation.

Again this is from a journalistic neophyte so if there are other aspects of this I'm missing I'm open to learning about them ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing I wouldn't imagine people in China are reading much US media anymore after Microsoft and Google etc. are censoring websites for the commie govt.

I jsut visited China in November. Its an interesting situation. In terms of broadcast media, you can watch CNN, MSNBC, etc. They're all there. However, the second anything negative about China comes on, the screen goes black and the sound shuts off. One time I was watching a BBC news segment on China (in China) and they were talking about the economic boom. Then the interviewer swtiched the subject to human rights and, as soon as the phrase "human rights" ended the screen went black and the sound went off. Kind of funny.

As for websites, I can't iamgine the Chinese government censoring each and every site. They probably ahve a blacklist. One thing I do know is that sending e-mail takes alot longer there b/c the e-mails are run through the government censor program before they are deemed good to go. I noticed the same thing when I was in the Middle East (also last year).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious!

I was unaware how they censored the TV coverage over there . . . as far as the internet censoring it is even worse then the government doing it. What I am hearing from human rights groups is that the government is telling Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google that if they want access to the world's most populus economy THEY will police any content coming into China to the specs outlined by Bejing. Americans are censoring it for the communists!

Since I get most of my PG and Trib online . . . China can't gain access to the whole news be it through Pittsburgh papers or the NYT. Anyway my whole point in all this was that it doesn't take a subscription anymore to read a newspaper from halfway around the globe, many read the PG and Trib throughout the world, nothing massive, but there is a good number I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious!

I was unaware how they censored the TV coverage over there . . . as far as the internet censoring it is even worse then the government doing it. What I am hearing from human rights groups is that the government is telling Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google that if they want access to the world's most populus economy THEY will police any content coming into China to the specs outlined by Bejing. Americans are censoring it for the communists!

Yes, Microsoft recently pulled a blog posted by a man in China because the content was against the rules. They have to do this if they want Chinese business. Now if it were me, I would say "Screw it then, I will get by without Chinese business." But I guess that is why Bill Gates is rich and I am not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yes, Microsoft recently pulled a blog posted by a man in China because the content was against the rules. They have to do this if they want Chinese business. Now if it were me, I would say "Screw it then, I will get by without Chinese business." But I guess that is why Bill Gates is rich and I am not!

China is the hottest economy (not the best though) on earth, the shear #s involved boggles the mind. To get locked out of that nation as a Fortune 500 company is almost a death sentence. Nothing short of an act of Congress (which SHOULD happen) will stop this hypocrisy, the reason Gates et. al. have the $$$ and the freedom is because no one "censored" their ability to succeed 20 years ago.

This would make a great SR for the PG if you ask me sort of like the Rwanda and Vietnam SF reports that won them gold a few years ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see if I missed a story but nothing the Trib ever reported with Heinz, Clinton or the Saudis has proven inaccurate or non-legit,

The Vince Foster story is one example and a very blatent example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ VF was the press at it's best IMHO, were there leads followed and reported that turned into dead ends? Yes. Same could be said about Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, Iran Contra . . . is the NYT and Washington Post poltical tabloid rags then? No. To compare those stories with the Jayson Blairs, Michael Finkels or Harold Raines is night and day. Again this is a journalistic novice talking but from being intimately involved in the political and historical I would think a reporter that killed, sat on, or shelved a story in which he didn't have every question answered (a reporter being stonewalled? never!) would have made a lousy reporter, paper and to think if Nixon and Reagans excesses weren't checked, a lousy country at this point. To dismiss a topic that has smoke . . . must have fire, kind of defeats the whole point of being a print reporter, you don't IGNORE questions or events. Clinton is as imperfect as any other leader we've ever had, my concern is that instead of asking the tough questions--and not caring how long or how many stories it took to answer them--in the late 90's the NYT was hiring Blairs and Finkles, while the Post was more busy criticizing other papers doing investigations on their editorial page?! It is fine to run the story as an editors personal anaylsis on "coverage" but it doesn't merit investigative journalism?!

To be world-class you need a Woodward & Bernstein, and as history--and the exposure of the real deep throat--proves at least a third of their stories were dead ends, journalistic hocus pocus, but again the questions were legit, the investigation on-going, you might hate Woodward but you can't disagree with his logic overall. Ruddy was there to INVESTIGATE, if you ask me that means the NYT and Post dropped the "world class" ball for those years, where was the Woodward spirit? Even Reagan seemed to get a pass :(.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your points are fine except that you applying them to a newspaper where it doesn't fit. Ruddy was debunked - not for getting it wrong, but for making things up. The history with that paper goes well beyond him, though I don't have the specifics to back that up now, but their reputation is well known.

Back in college, media was my major and politics, my minor. I have had a serious interest in these two areas for years and in particular, the instersection of both of them. No journalist, or reader, should take seriously the deliberate trash that the Trib has put out.

Newspapers and the media get things wrong, but when there is an inherent systematic agenda in the NEWS department (I don't care about the editorial dept) then that's a serious issue. The paper really is the print version of Fox.

Of course there are legitimate things to investigate regarding Clinton, or anyone else, whether a D or R follows there name, but don't confuse political hacks with journalists.

I totally agree with that we need more Woodwards. Sadly I am wondering what happened to him. His not stating his involvement in the Plame leak is really pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad to know that other people feel the same as I do about the Trib. For years I have been frustrated by it, but couldn't seem to put into words just what I thought. The paper touts itself as some kind of great, intelligent entity that isn't afraid to tell the truth. But I have always known that is bullcrap, and you guys are helping me to put my finger on why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think you all are not giving the Trib a fair shake, I don't believe they are up to the PG, I don't even believe that they are always providing equal time, however I have met some "experts" out there that detest the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the NYT, even the WSJ. Why? Because they don't agree with them. I will venture to state that from what I've read in local issues with the Trib (to your point Gerbil) they have never been wrongheaded in their analysis of the realities facing the city, county and state. They do tend to be anti-city, but counterweigh that to the PG's overwhelming "city can't do any wrong". There has to be a major media outlet asking 300 Grant tough questions. I also have seen healthy criticisims of the REAL problem in this state--Hburg.

Mj, since you do have the education behind this (doesn't have to be tommorrow) I'd love to see some facts on why you feel this way about the Trib. Again, I don't care how partisan or how opinionated a paper is (many could cite countless ways the Post, NYT, and WSJ are waterboys for a political party), are they fair and responsible in the way they investigate stories? Are they willing to report both sides to some degree? Woodward is as detested as much as he is loved, however no one can really claim he was not FAIR in his reporting.

One thing to remember about the Trib, arguably the best news photo ever taken--one that led to the animus against Nixon and fueled his eventual downfall--was taken by the "right wing tool" Trib. It also won them their sole Pulitzer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my thing about the Trib.... Good reporting means being unbiased. If bias is showing through very obviously, then it isn't true reporting. The Trib, more than any other paper I have read, lets its biases come glaring through in their articles. Every paper will have some leanings, but the Trib is worse.

I am not saying they haven't had some good articles. But when it comes to any story that relates to the city or city government, I think they do a poor job of reporting the news, for the reason described above.

I think the PG is a far better paper. It does have it's leanings, as I said, but nothing like what I have seen in the Trib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.