The Associated Press’s Stinky ‘New Distinctiveness’
Just in time for the 2012 elections, the Associated Press, which yours truly has taken to calling the Administration’s Press, has consciously decided to inject even more left-wing bias into its reports.
A leaked memo published on December 13 by a sympathetic Michael Calderone (so sympathetic that he got out the heavy-duty Huffington Post shovel for his opening sentence: “The Associated Press has been getting it first and getting it right for the past 165 years”) described something called “The New Distinctiveness.”
Don’t fall asleep, folks. When you read the memo’s text, and just a bit between the lines, what you find is a justification for and formulation of a new form of agenda journalism from the people whose only job should be relaying the facts, something they have been doing progressively (pun intended) more poorly in recent years:
AP wins when news breaks, but after an hour or two we’re often replaced by a piece of content from someone else who has executed something more thoughtful or more innovative.
Gee guys, do you really think you’re done collecting facts after an hour or two? Let other folks “think” and be “innovative.” As soon as you have more, better, and clearer facts, they’ll have to update. If you stop gathering facts, which you do all too often already, readers’ eyes will move elsewhere, with no motivation to return.
Despite the lip service to “digging deeper” appearing several paragraphs later, the big strategic enchilada in the memo has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with spin:
Journalism With Voice. We’re going to be pushing hard on journalism with voice, with context, with more interpretation. This does not mean that we’re sacrificing any of our deep commitment to unbiased, fair journalism. It does not mean that we’re venturing into opinion, either. It does mean that we need to be looking for ways to be more distinctive and stand out in the field — something our customers need and want. The why and the how of the news are as crucial as the who, what, when and where.
Here I thought “Journalism With Voice” referred to TV and radio broadcasts.
A day later, Logan Churchwell at Accuracy in Media wondered: “[H]ow does one report with ‘voice’ while maintaining a ‘deep commitment to unbiased, fair journalism?’” I did too. The answer is: You can’t.
Though AP’s implementation appears to be in its early stages, Churchwell thinks he has seen a bit of the future of the New Distinctiveness. Justifiably, he doesn’t like it one bit. He cites with examples a clear three-step “playbook” the wire service is already using to frame GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney for the general election, well before the primaries have even been decided:
- “Paint Romney as filthy rich; like his daddy before him.” It appears to be an AP requirement that Romney be serially cited as a “multimillionaire” (so is Barack Obama, guys, as well as a large plurality in the House and a majority in the Senate), and that references to his father, who passed away sixteen years ago and was mostly out of the public eye for two decades before that, must remind people of how rich he was, even though in his heyday George Romney’s company with its thrifty line of compact Rambler cars made the cover of Time, where he was dubbed a “folk hero.”
- “Suggest to readers that either Romney is too smart, or Republicans are too dumb to understand him.” Because after all, only dumb people bitterly clinging to guns and religion could possibly vote Republican, and anyone who went to an Ivy League school must be beyond their pathetic ability to understand.
- “Always remind the reader that he’s a Mormon.” Pretty interesting, given that there seems to be a hard-and-fast rule at AP and in the rest of the establishment press that you cannot ever mention the Obamas’ nearly 20-year affiliation with the church run by the overtly racist Jeremiah “God D*mn America” Wright, or the fact that the Obamas have rarely attended church since they arrived in Washington.
The AP shouldn’t even think about doing “Journalism With Voice” — which if used at all should be carried out as a separate, clearly labeled enterprise — until it does a passable job of clearly reporting the facts without seeming to bow to the Obama administration’s wish not to see anything particularly negative, or to political correctness in general.
Just a few of many odious examples from the past two weeks:
- An unbylined report on January 5 gave readers who didn’t get to the fourth of five paragraphs the impression that the administration’s summer jobs initiative will involve 180,000 paid positions. Even then, it only told us that “many” will be unpaid. How many? Try 110,000.
- On December 30, Korea bureau director Jean H. Lee might as well have been auditioning to be the North’s next propaganda minister, as she effusively marveled at the omnipresence of pictures of the recently deceased Kim Jong Il throughout the countryside. Lee never called him anything worse than a “leader.” Attempting in what was supposed to be a straight news report to outdo Michael Moore’s disgraceful reference to happy kids flying kites in Iraq under mass murderer Saddam Hussein in Fahrenheit 911, Lee wrote of how “young men in bumper cars bash each other gleefully at an amusement park that Kim ordered renovated as part of a bid to ‘improve the people’s daily lives.’” Gosh, if only he had lived longer.
- Concerning signing statements, those heinous things presidential candidate Obama promised he would not use, a December 28 report by Jim Kuhnhenn told readers that Obama only said he would make them “more transparent,” while a December 31 report by Julie Pace “cleverly” avoided using the term “signing statement” until the fifth paragraph. Earlier, she only referred to “a statement accompanying his signature.”
Guys, how about getting the stench out of your stinky everyday reports first before getting adventurous? Oh, I forgot; you’ve got a president to get reelected.






As a former intel type, AP and the MSM are rated as sources whose reliability, validity, and bias do not allow them to be consider credible.
Which makes obviously moot any claim that the press would find Romney’s liberalness pleasant enough to give him a pass. They won’t, so Romeny’s liberalness does not make him “electable.”
AP stands for American Pravda.
It’s not opinion, of course not. It is ‘interpretation’. This gets more Orwellian by the hour.
‘Orwellian’ is good, comin’ from kiddie selfservatives who cannot be content with havin’ one whole sandbox (Foxcuckooland) all to themselves, but wanna make sure that the Associated Press does not utter any discouragin’ words about Party or AEIdeology.
__Und morgen die gnze Welt_, of course, for never was there a more misleading expression than “beyond the dreams of Avarice.” That lady wants it ALL, an’ She wants it all NOW.
The impeccably reactionary Mr. Mencken of Baltimore once defined ‘Puritanism’ as “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” The spectre that haunts Pajama Junction NJ is a little more specific, namely that somebody, somewhere may still think that the Whight Guard is more of a joke than a menace — and then get away without being swiftboated instantly, or buried alive in an avalanche of Tee Putty.
Happy days.
You’re, what, fifteen years old?
Love that remark.
I’ll bet it was done for a team class assignment.
A good rule by which to weigh an argument is whether the party who makes it talks about the issue and evidence or talks about his opponent. JHM talks entirely about his opponents and not very convincingly, at that. Notice his demonstration of Godwin’s Law and liberal use of name-calling in place of discussion of the issue.
The issue is whether the AP is politically biased. Part of the evidence is the AP’s slogan “Journalism with Voice.” What the AP says they mean by that is reporting with “more context, more intepretation”, but not biased or opinionated. Unfortunately, the MSM has already ruined its credibility and a good example of this is its dubious coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaign. My experience tells me that the AP’s claim that more “interpretation” won’t mean more opinion in lieu of facts is as questionable as anything else they print.
Rob:
I’m guessing 12.
I’m glad you guys understood that incoherent mess, because I didn’t.
This is the result of Karen Finley dating The Stolen Teleprompter. Somebody ate used yams last night and, well…
Good line on Mrs. President too.
“__Und morgen die gnze Welt_, of course, for never was there a more misleading expression than “beyond the dreams of Avarice.” That lady wants it ALL, an’ She wants it all NOW.”
Sounds like a truck full of buzzwords ran into a van full of cliches and the resulting pile of goop ran into the intellectual ditch.
Two thumbs up, Buck!
At the risk of blaspheming the gospel of Menken…
Puritanism, in my view, is the haunting fear that someone somewhere might be chopping up a baby because it interfered with a good time; taking a substance that actually renders one insane and then infesting the culture with the message that it’s great for everyone, including kids; destroying the foundation of family with the notion that cheap, quick thrills are more important than long-term contentment.
I’ve seen the coutner-argument to puritanism put into action, and it doesn’t excatly live up to Menken’s quippiness.
Controlling people who talk of protecting our long term contentment and who disparage our quick thrills are often communists who want to misuse the law to remove all happiness and replace it with a uniform and permanent form of needless misery…hell on earth. As a lover of freedom and happiness, I would consign people who love controlled misery to a segregated place (hell), far from me, where they could get what they want.
Gee, they’re also the people who put an end to rampant incest, human sacrifice and infanticide in pagan Europe. (Christian Europe was far and away better than the pagan barbarism it replaced. In fact, most of the evils that are ascribed to Christianity are the deeds of the idiot European pagans supposedly converting to Christianity but continuing their old ways and just not “getting it.”)
The Abolitionists were also accused of being “finger-wagging moralists” and “nags.”
The only way to go from beating each other with rocks to having trial by jury is for the people who invent trial by jury to foist it on the people who enjoy hitting their enemies with rocks.
Civilization is a balance of Liberty and Order. Absolute Liberty is Sodom and Gommorah, and I have no desire to live there.
I see one of the interns from Obama’s Office of the Director of Progressive Media and Online Response is working weekends.
I see the modern Hitler Youth is alive and well and has access to the InterWebz, apparently.
Look! It’s trying to talk, just like a real little boy, how precious!
I wonder what it thinks it’s saying???
I’m also getting a little fed up with the way Gingrich is portrayed by the mainstream media. He’s always portrayed as being “unstable, erratic, undisciplined, off-message,” to name just a few. They also keep harping on his “personal baggage” regarding his marriages. Sure, just like Bill Clinton didn’t have any trouble with women, and he served two terms as president. Well folks, tell me how a car wreck of a politician like that could have been Speaker of the House, worked with a DEMOCRATIC president to get several balanced federal budgets, and reformed welfare in this nation? If you hear Newt in debates (especially in last night’s debates), he’s the only thing worth listening to. Why is the mainstream media, let alone the Democrats, slamming this guy so much and on a constant basis?
Because he can win.
Based on what I’ve seen, Newt can win – about 10% of the Republican vote. His repeated marital infidelity and $300,000 ethics fines are inexcusable (or at least unexcused) is because, unlike Mr. Clinton, he is a Republican and does not have the press on his side. He may or may not be the smartest person in the room, but he always thinks he is. Between his statement “I will be the nominee” and his accusation that “Mitt Romney is a liar,” I have no further tolerance for the former Speaker. While I’d prefer a more conservative candidate, I’d rather have a Massachusetts moderate than a Georgia jerk.
Have you noticed that both the legacy media and the establishment Republicans currently agree that they hate Gingrich and love Romney? It really should not be surprising; the media and the Republican elites are all Progressives who desire communism as their eventual end-state. Romney will smile stiffly as he gently nudges us towards that kind of hell. Gingrich is a threat to them because he has many random thoughts that vary from their hellish orthodoxy.
I agree Newt is the best at speaking to the Republican base, and in fighting the media narrative. The question is: can he make the conservative case to a majority of Americans.
He’s got until August to prove he can.
For the time being, Newt’s my man. Here’s hoping he can convince a majority to vote GOP in 2012.
Republicans will continue to get beaten up until they land some punches on the media’s nose. The media is running cover for Obama’s illegal acts. Until republicans are willing to go on live MSM ,(make sure it’s live or they will edit to make you look stupid) and full out attack the interviewers for blatant Obama propagandizing, citing examples of what the interviewer refuses to report, ( fast and furious Brian Williams), they have no hope of stopping this evil man. The media is pro Obama masquerading as unbiased . It is time to rip their masks off ,on their own show . What is there to lose?
They could start by conducting their own debates with actual Republican moderators instead of catering to the media.
“This does not mean that we’re sacrificing any of our deep commitment to unbiased, fair journalism. It does not mean that we’re venturing into opinion, either.”
It’s almost impressive, just how facile they have become at lying through their teeth to us all.
#7 Allston: They are actually telling the truth, because they have no record of unbiased fair journalism, so there is no way to sacrifice it.
I think the Marxists in this country have lived too long in the shadows. It is time for them to come out of the closet. I think it is our responsibility to “OUT” the Marxists.
Leftists come in different flavors, Socialists, small c communists, Communists, Leninists…but the term Marxists works just fine for our purposes.
In other countries they operate out in the open, the populace knows where they stand, what their platform truly is, what their belief system is…and when or if they vote for them…THEY ARE NOT GETTING A COMPLETE SCAM.
Because our information stream is poisoned, tainted, toxic and polluted…(and therefore, I won’t drink from it), they assist the hiding of the Marxists and cover for them, allowing them to pretend to be something they are not. EVERY outlet douses their “facts” with a “voice”. Then lights the truth on fire and burns it in a funeral pyre.
Some, …I would say many…maybe even most…of our voting populace, does not know the real truth about ANSWER, ACORN/SEIU, United for Peace and Justice or the following:
All-African People’s Revolutionary Party (A-APRP)
Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America)
American Indian Movement – Grand Governing Council (AIM-GGC)
American Indian Movement – International Federation of Autonomous Chapters (AIM-IFAC)
Barrio Union (Unión del Barrio)
Black Radical Congress (BRC)
Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP)
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS)
Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA)
Communist Voice Organization
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)
For a Better World
Freedom Road Socialist Organization [Fight Back] (FRSO)
Freedom Road Socialist Organization [Freedom Road] (FRSO)
Freedom Socialist Party (FSP)
Green Party of the United States, mirror page, other page
Heatwave Communist-Anarchist Federation (Heatwave CAF)
Independent Progressive Politics Network (IPPN)
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)
International Socialist Organization (ISO)
Internationalist Group
Internationalist Notes, other page, Los Angeles Workers Voice
Labor Party (LP)
Labor Standard, mirror page
Labor’s Militant Voice, mirror page
League for the Revolutionary Party (LRP)
League of Revolutionaries for a New America (LRNA)
Left Green Network
Left Party
Left Turn
Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)
National Black United Front (NBUF)
New Democracy
New Liberty Party
New Party
New Union Party
News & Letters Committees
Organizing Committee for the Program of Permanent Revolution
Peace and Freedom Party (PFP), periodical Partisan Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (PFOC)
Progressive Labor Party (PLP), other page
Progressive ProAction Party
Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) periodical Revolutionary Worker
Revolutionary Workers League (RWL)
Social Democrats USA (SDUSA)
Socialist Action
Socialist Alternative
Socialist Equality Party (SEP)
Socialist Labor Party (SLP)
Socialist Organizer
Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)
Socialist Workers Organization (SWO) periodical Socialist Viewpoint
Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) periodical Militant Solidarity, mirror page
The Greens/Green Party USA, mirror page
United People’s Party (La Raza Unida Party)
United States Pacifist Party (USPP)
Unity Organizing Committee (UOC) unofficial page
US Marxist-Leninist Organization (USMLO) periodical Voice of Revolution
Vermont Progressive Party
Workers Democracy Network
Workers International League (WIL), youth organization
Workers Party U.S.A.
Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA)
Workers World Party (WWP)
Working Families Party (WFP)
World Socialist Party of the United States (WSPUS)
And all the assorted Ayers movements, foundations and groups and all the Soros movements, foundations and groups etc.
Because the corrupt media INTENTIONALLY hides these folks, as active co-conspirators…the attempt to unveil their true intent in bringing down capitalism and making America a “domesticated and tamed” housecat of the world, instead of its leader….destroying its “hyperpowers” with the kryptonite (either green or red works just as well), our voting public does not know that it is voting to destroy itself. At least most of it does not.
Do we have a responsibility to “out” Marxism as it is being infused into our body politic like a hidden poison? My answer is this:
We do not have any greater responsibility and we are at the precipice. And…we are failing. We are failing as patriots. We are failing as countrymen to each other. We are failing as a nation.
At this moment in our history….we need a hero. And, at that very moment in time when we need each other most…we sent in the “B” team. That saddens and frightens me beyond belief.
There is a generally accepted wisdom that you don’t pick a fight with someone who buys their ink by the barrel. I think it no longer is true for us.
First, we must stop pointing at the corruption and propagandizing of our information stream…we must adopt an across the board assault on it…FROM THE TOP. Second, we must draw out the Marxists into the light and not let them hide under rocks, baseboards and in the shadows. FROM THE TOP.
Let them come out into the open and let’s have the debate about what is REALLY happening…not some fraudulent, cloaked, masked, and propagandized, rigged selection process. But, ….WE don’t even have this discussion on OUR side…much less against the Marxists. Because we fear the “McCarthy” slander and blowback “defense”. That’s insane. We are going to sit silently by and tremble in a corner while our country is being torn to pieces for fear of a propagandized slander by the very Marxists who are doing the tearing?
The totalitarian hand is squeezing the truth out of our information stream. Not only is there no “mutuality” in asking the same type, manner, depth and breadth of questions to leftist candidates, there is an active attempt to cover up, hide, disguise, mask and eradicate the truth about them.
Why? We are certainly aware of Socialists and Communists (small c or large) in Europe, Africa, Asia…why is it here that they so deliberately hide in the shadows? It’s not that they are the bogeyman…it’s that they are masquerading as something they are not. Why? If small c communism is so great, why not lay out the platform in the open and let’s debate it. Call the question.
The country is in deep, deep trouble. We have the Marxists with their hands around our throats and we fight back with a pillow and try to tickle them. We try to look “reasonable”. I AM reasonable. I DO look at issues from the cfbleachers. But if we fight like sissies we are going to lose.
We don’t demand truth, we beg for it.
Now is the time, now is the moment, now…not years from now. And…I’m afraid…we just aren’t made of the right stuff to do it. So we sent out the “B” team to dip a toe in the water and nibble around the edges. We needed to be made of sterner stuff. We needed to band together to save all that was bequeathed to us. We failed. And now…we will pay the price. Yet again.
At the risk of being overly dismissive, how many people actually belong to any of those groups? And how many of those members are the same people, over and over?
Especially in this day and age, I would be willing to bet that a kids in basements each run about half a dozen of those.
Tell me how many people are in ACORN/SEIU, Soros’ organizations, Democratic Socialists of America and what influence they have had…in education, Hollywood, media.
Then tell me about kids in basements.
Quite a list, CF. Tell you what, I think you might want to add this to your list. It is not as formally an organization as the rest perhaps, but it is organized and it sure results in a lot of stinky “distinctiveness.”
http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/2011/01/journolist-membership.html
Does PJmedia pay AP for its newsfeed? I hope not.
You mean like Fox News does? I have to laugh at Leftards who think Fox is anything but less Left.
Fox is, at best, less left than the competition.
Does that make it “right-wing”? Only if one considers MS-National Barack Channel “centrist”
Any network which has the likes of Geraldo and Alan Colmes on it as regulars is not conservative unless Rivera and Colmes are sitting over dunk tanks and Brit Hume is throwing baseballs at a target. Then I’d buy it.
“The Associated Press has been getting it first and getting it right for the past 165 years”
Correction;
“The Associated Press has been getting it first and getting it Left for the past 165 years”
When I see “AP”, I scan the article quickly just to find out what the particular bias/slant are on the subject at hand.
It doesn’t take long.
Such putative reporters should burn in hell.
The fifth column of the fourth estate indeed,
When I’m skimming AP sources (which I hardly do) it’s fun to not only spot the bias, but the gaping holes that are often found in the coverage or how long it takes them to acknowledge the ‘inconvenient’ facts central to a story.
It blows my mind how AP got to be a ‘respected’ news source. They coddle their audience worse then the cable news networks.
You only bring to the market that which will sell to the consumer. Why on earth would anyone bring the truth to a Marxist?! First, he would not recognize it as such. Second, unless it fit his weltanschauung he would not buy it because it was clearly false.
So we blame AP for being good business men, albeit unethical, dishonorable and without virtue of any sort. Seems silly to me.
What we should be doing is excoriating and exercising the educational system and its workers for producing a defective product. And we should have standards and licensing for parents. If you want to have a child you should be smart enough to recognize and reject such drivel produced by such people as the AP.
So we blame AP for being good business men, albeit unethical, dishonorable and without virtue of any sort. Seems silly to me.
The press and electronic media should not be about feeding preferred pap to an already ideologically bent audience, to a gaggle of morons.
There used to be standards about this stuff, a body of ethics and even a coda to which journalists took an oath.
Now they’re just whores, and apparently proud of it.
Since the overhaul of education you advocate doesn’t look to be in the pipeline anytime soon, media as the equivalent of brainwashing does matter.
A lot.
You’re actually wrong when you try to put it all on education. The fact is if someone is only watching AP they, even if they are educated, will not see any in-your-face bias. From my experience it was from hearing the “other” side of the story from certain “watchers” who showed me the light of media bias. Newsbusters for example. I’m still blown away as to how biased the media is. It is very blatant, arrogant, and grotesque, in my opinion, but I don’t think I would have ever spotted it on my own, as I am not a politician nor very involved in politics; and to the general population, politics is a relative relative. It isn’t until a person forms a solid conviction in their mind, or when the stability of their life is directly challenged, usually, before they stop to investigate the truthiness of other voices. Education isn’t necessarily a factor. Politics, to the general public, is analogous to someone watching crystals grow.
kb has a point which I’ve slammed up against within my own family — how can people as bright as I am, even more “educated” than I am, hold such views on what is transpiring in the world? I don’t believe that the media ever were anything but vehicles of propaganda, but there used to be a local newspaper for each local party. It seems to me the “conservative” party–and I’m not sure the Republicans deserve that name, really–is very, very bad at using media in general. I don’t know why. Fox seems to be the only exception, and for pity’s sake, it’s run by Australians!
“Authorized Propaganda” always keeps its fish eyed lens focused on the “Agenda Proper”, regardless of the administration in power.
Hey, for AP why bother with Obama white, Obama light, when you can have the real heavy duty sugar daddy in the White House? When it comes to the individual mandate requiring the treatment of inactivity as activity, in short, requiring servitude to corporate health care interests as a condition of existence, you would at least think black males would recognize slavery when it slaps them in the face. But hey, liberals can’t recognize fascism with a smiley face either.
The AP is feeling the competition from bloggers who do little more than comment on the original journalism of others. Those bloggers themselves are often viciously partisan but want to be at once thought of as journalists but without having to have the same standards of non-partisanship they accuse entities like AP of now bowing to. If bloggers want to have an agenda and the patina of journalism at the same time they have no business criticizing AP for moving in the same direction; at least the AP carries their own water.
Now that’s the king of excuses.
And bloggers are not equivalent to “the media”.
And AP (and fellow lamestream brothers & sisters in crime) isn’t “moving” in the direction of bending the news but has held the position for a long time.
You’re right: they’re are not the equivalent of the media. Though they are wannabe journalists, they don’t wanna step outside the doors of their own rooms. They can’t, they run the whole operation and don’t have the time.
Bloggers replace experience and on the ground fact finding with the surety of their sheer intellect, moral positioning and the unerring ability to see through any fog.
How many authoritative “reports” from bloggers fascinated by their own insight have I had to read about the revolution in Egypt from people who’ve never set foot inside the country but think every situation is essentially the same and so draw inane one-time, one-vote comparisons using Nazi Germany, Gaza and Iran. They essentially parrot one the other and before you know it the Muslim Brotherhood is in charge and in the midst of establishing a new caliphate.
At least journalists know when they’re twisting the truth. Bloggers read a lot – so what?
I too wish to read from qualified, living the action so to speak of said pieces. Thus this makes your entire argument wrong, Surety.
Some PJ media contributor/bloggers:
Michael Totten’s spent PLENTY of time in the M E.
Michael Ledeen’s direct work within the M E, S Europe and the intel community is vast.
Victor Davis Hanson’s body of work speaks for itself.
Ohillip Smyth lived, wrote of M E news.
Dr. Paul Hsieh is more than qualified to discuss insurance, surgical matters.
Ray Hartwell is an attorney with 3 + decades in comp law.
Hans A. von Spakovsky fellowship, former Commissioner of the Fed Election Commission ‘qualifies’ him to write on PJM.
Former DoJ J. Christian Adams writes compelling pieces of our DoJ.
These are just some of the authors you can pull up their bio on PJ Media. ‘Real tough work’.
It’s a shame you were too busy writing fictional nonsense of ‘unqualified’ PJ Media bloggers.
What fictional nonsense is involved in saying Ruben writes about Egypt every week but without going there or that Totten has been in Egypt twice in the last 10 years, once since the revolution when all was calm – analysis has its limits when it comes to such things which is painfully obvious in the case of Egypt and also leaves that situation open to undiluted propaganda and truth twisting.
The rest you mention aren’t involved in such matters and I wasn’t singling out PJM anyway but the blogosphere in general – nevertheless opinion pieces have their limits. Adams does great on the scene work and is making a true difference and actually breaking stories. Adults understand generalities and their worth and I was speaking in generalities.
The point I was obviously making is why agenda driven bloggers who piggy back onto original work would complain that original work is agenda driven. There seems to be some understanding that if the work isn’t original then it can be twisted and turned any which way and that it is in choosing what original work to present in the first place that is the problem.
Well, run over to Syria and Egypt and do it right. The spectacle of bloggers at a blogging convention all videotaping each other doing nothing when a few OWS entered was ridiculous. Most blogs are little more than petty kingdoms which produce nothing original other than sharing their own brilliant take on events which makes me long for the day when diaries were private.
This is why bloggers commonly portray Qaradawi commanding 2 million rabid Islamists in Tahrir Square one day which is an event that never happened. What other events that never happened are being “reported?” Knowing and respecting one’s limits is not a value championed in blogs.
Bloggers don’t pretend to be doing anything but writing their own opinions. I don’t think PJMedia bloggers are claiming to be middle of the road. Maybe you should talk to Bill Whittle about that, though. LOL
Sorry to be facetious. Of course there are good reporters in the blogosphere. I faithfully watch and read Mr. Ledeen on the Iran situation. But a good many bloggers do simply write opinion columns. It would be nice if the AP and The Times would admit that’s what they do, also.
@ Libertyship46: “Because he can win.”
A potted plant could defeat Obama in the 2012 election.
Seriously, if the GOP nominated a potted plant (assuming the plant was 35 years old and a natural born citizen plant), I think it would have a decent shot at getting elected over Obama. That’s how pathetic Obama’s term has been.
I am entirely serious.
I for one am all for this move by AP. AP (like the rest of the MSM) is the enemy. You want only one of two things to happen to your enemy:
1. Absolute complete conversion to your side.
2. Self-destruction
This move is one more step along the path of Option 2.
I’m not sure who is more naive here: AP by claiming that they are objective or Tom Blumer by saying they should and could be just that.
And mentioning Romneys Mormonism is equivalent to mentioning Rev. Wright? C’mon.
Good story. I agree that the AP is already much to biased, without introducing yet more bias with “voice”,”context”, “disctinctiveness” and even more excuses to inject even more leftist bias. The AP is there to report the basic facts, quickly, with no spin, and leave it the the NYT and the MSM to introduce their leftist editorializing, or (from the point of view of you leftists) for Fox and talk radio to introduce their right wing bias.
I’m confused: if memory serves, the AP announced it was adding more interpretation over two years ago. Does this mean they’re adding even more interpretation? We need a wire service called “Friday: Just the facts m’am”.