This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

I'll try to find more. I think this book is a wonderful starting point for discussion, not only for the fairly mature POV/counterPOV that certain news organizations (e.g. NYT, Fox News) are slanted, or engage in spiking, in this or that political direction -- but also the POV/counterPOV that there can be no such thing as NPOV since all writing is the product of its authors' predjudices and/or politics. Mbstone 22:40, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

==[edit]

I read the novel a few years ago. I did not find the following "argument" in the text of the book, although an advocate might regard the story as sympathetic with the POV expressed below:

On another level, the book argues that all news is propaganda and that conservatives should purchase news media outlets and slant them rightward by spiking stories that they do not agree with -- because if they do not do so, liberal reporters and editors will do just the opposite).

My own opinion, although it is not relevant to the article, is that news outlets should not slant OR spike news. Whether or not the NYT, Washington Post, et al. comprise a neutral "mainstream" that never slants or spikes the news is a highly volatile open question. Whether the Washington Times counteracts slanting and spiking with objective reporting is equally contentious.

Let's stick to the content of the book, okay? Or if some Author out there has drawn conclusions, let's quote them -- not put words into de Borchgrave's mouth.

Unless of course, I've totally missed a passage in the book where he blatantly says that the rightwing should "slant and spike"!!! --Uncle Ed 15:06, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

8 out of 9 people found the following Amazon.com review helpful:

I know, I know. The heading's a tad too ephusive but I JUST LOVED THIS BOOK! The Spike is a news- paper term for killing a story. That's the meaning of the title. Written in 1980, it's about Robert Hockney. It begins in 1968, where Hockney, a journalism major at Berkley, participates in the antiwar movement. The war at the beginning and throughout the first half of the book being the Vietnam War. He's sent to Saigon to cover the Vietnam War for the New York World--a newspaper that's out of business in real life. Hockney meets Tessa Torrence, an aspiring actress who's like Jane Fonda. Hockney's father is a retired admiral. Hockney himself is 4F, unfit for service, because of a bad knee. His girlfriend, Julia Cummings, is the sister of Perry Cummings, a KGB mole in the Department of Defense. In the second half, Hockney goes around the world trying to uncover a plot by the Soviet Union to bring down the United States. Viktor Borisov, a a KGB agent in Switzerland, defects to the West with his wife and family. Borisov goes to Washington and testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee and names names. Some of them U.S. Senators--others high officials in the new Connor Administration. A Soviet backed coup North Yemen, spreads to Saudi Arabia and brings down the Saudi monarchy. At the end of the book, Connor's new vice president tells him that he won't be running in two years and he will. He also warns the Soviets that they'll face a nuclear attack. [1]

Critics of these news organizations contend they themselves slant the news, rightward, using "the spike."

This should be attributed. Which critics? Surely not you, the Wikipedia contributor.
Do these "critics" distinguish between omitting stories, which is the chief meaning of spiking as used in the novel -- and slanting the news?

We can repair the above extract by mentioning criticism of convervative/liberal, right/left news sources. "Writer X says news source Y shows bias Z by slanting the news." Better yet, show some examples.

I won't have an edit war if you simply revert my deletion, but I was hoping that an Encyclopedia Article would do better than to take a gratuitous swipe. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that a quote from the book or an attributed reviewer is better for an encyclopedia. So I will direct readers to the numerous critics who find rightwing bias in the Washington Times, as quoted and linked to there.

My original article merely mentioned deBorchgrave's affiliation with the Wash Times and UPI -- and invited readers to draw their own conclusions. Mbstone 00:15, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)