Comments on: AP dropping any pretense of objectivity

By: steve

steve — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:42:07 +0000

First section, page A2, above the fold. Peace

By: sanity

sanity — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:00:34 +0000

You talking about this small town paper, the Daily Commercial steve?

I searched this paper, includig sections on the weekend and saw no mention of what your talking about.

Though they do seem to have quite a few soldier stories of support, and support for the war and what they are doing.

Thanks for pointing out another place to find soldier support.

By: Baklava

Baklava — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 05:25:36 +0000

Andrew.

Facts can’t be argued. Just because you agree with the opinions doesn’t mean that they weren’t opinion. It’d do you well to admit when something is opinion versus fact. It only shows arrogance on your part otherwise.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:52:50 +0000

Try the Daily Commercial, I believe that’s in Florida, Saturday’s edition. Peace

By: forest hunter

forest hunter — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:31:17 +0000

Brainster, I checked as well and saw no BOLD print of the word analysis. It seems that if your only distorted sources, as the magic wand waving st.eves continue to highlight, are the clueless America hating sites, facts be damned and print out what suits todays agenda.

andrew, would it were so, that “The facts speak for themselves.”

By: Brainster

Brainster — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:43:05 +0000

Steve, I’ve been unable to locate where exactly this article is labeled “analysis”. I’ve searched for it on the AP site and every link is to a newspaper or a radio/TV station printing the article as it appears on Yahoo news, with no label.

By: andrew

andrew — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:13:30 +0000

“AP dropping any pretense of objectivity”

The facts speak for themselves.

By: Big Bang Hunter

Big Bang Hunter — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:02:37 +0000

- Off the mark as usual Steve-oh. Both thr piece utself, and the way its presented, and the whole point of ST’s post zipps over your pointed little head like bong smoke in a hurricane.

I’ll spell it out for you, since anything more complex than the comic section seems to challenge you on a regular basis.

- If its “analysis”, which in this case it most certainly is, it DOESN’T belong in the main news section under a heaadline. It belongs in the OpED section. Got that so far?

- A good journalist does not try to pass off personal opinions and idelogical positions as “Facts and News”.

- But its sells to the hard left base, about the only audience they have left at this point.

- Ok. You can go bsck to your Huakah now.

- Bang’s fangs

By: steve

steve — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:03:19 +0000

When I read that piece by AP, it clearly stated in big bold letters that it was an ANALYSIS. To me that means someone views what facts they have and then extrapolates. Have I missed something? Peace

By: Don Surber

Don Surber — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:14:44 +0000

Loven Bush’s Critics

What is interesting is the two experts cited in Loven’s story were cited in another Loven story on Bush’s speeches from April 2004: Bush speeches becoming ‘Clintonesque’. Loven has identified them as experts and they are because, well, the AP cited…

By: Brainster

Brainster — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:01:52 +0000

My favorite is the one she recycles from 2004: Running for re-election against Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush frequently used some version of this line to paint his Democratic opponent as weaker in the fight against terrorism: "My opponent and others believe this matter is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement." From a April 2004 Meet The Press interview with Nuancy Boy: MR. RUSSERT: But the Republicans, Vice President Cheney included, have pointed out to a comment that you made during a Democratic debate which they think undercuts your support of the war on terrorism. "The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world." SEN. KERRY: Yes.

By: Lorica

Lorica — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:00:36 +0000

This is all part of bad card players overplaying their hand. Time is short for them and they can sense it. In their desperation they are overplaying their pair of deuces against our full house aces over kings. It reminds me of all the blah blah blah the day Baghdad fell. When the people came out cheering to meet our troops the MSM was shut up. I was cheering as Dan Rather stumbled over the words trying to describe the event. Surprise Dan the people of Baghdad didn’t like their tyranical leader. Idiot. These people just amaze me. They still hope that Iraq fails, that these poor people go thru a civil war, just so they can rub it into GW’s face. And you can tell me I am wrong but just look at the amount of news stories, even after it seemed the civil war wasn’t going to happen. Talk about wishful thinking. – Lorica

By: Hyde Park » AP: Bush using “straw-man” arguments

Hyde Park » AP: Bush using “straw-man” arguments — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:10:40 +0000

[...] I found only a few conservative posts on the topic as of this evening, which include: AP dropping any pretense of objectivity “It used to be that liberal media bias was subtle, almost unnoticeable to the untrained eye. Nowadays it’s so overt in some stories that it’s surprising they even made it past the editors.” [...]

By: The Unalienable Right » AP peddling unvarnished partisan hit piece as “news”

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:39:18 +0000

[...] Others: Riehl World View Sister Toldjah posted by: The Editors @ 7:30 pm March 18, 2006 [...]

By: benning

benning — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 04:03:22 +0000

Well, it isn’t as if the AP has been objective, anyway. They’ve been hewing to the Dem line for a long time.

I can’t think of a traditional press organization that has been truly independant. Can you?

Another reason why the MSM is losing readers/viewers/listeners.