AP loses more credibility by jumping the gun

[srellim234]

Associated Press released the story over an hour ago describing the speeches that President Bush and Fred Thompson gave at the RNC tonight. Slight problem. The speeches haven't occurred yet.

Another example of the press not to be trusted with a secret. AP received the text of the speech and released it early in the form of saying something had happened when it hadn't.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...p_138
Modified by srellim234 at 6:56 PM 9/2/2008

[AZhitman]

Oops.

[szh]

Associated Press released the story over an hour ago describing the speeches that President Bush and Fred Thompson gave at the RNC tonight. Slight problem. The speeches haven't occurred yet.

Goes to show that interesting media bias to the left. They just had to take their "intelligent" commentary and potshots early, huhn?

Z

[smockers83]

The AP sucks anyways. Their writers can't write worth crap and can't write a coherent story. Their articles are always jumping around, broken ideas and paragraphs, and repeating themselves. Its as if they spent 2 minutes per article and threw it up for submission with no editing.

[srellim234]

It had nothing to do with a media bias to the left and you are the one taking "potshots" and skewing the story into something it's not.

The story is a fair enough description of what was in the speeches. My gripe is about how untrustworthy the press in general has become. The stories of the political and military leaders giving info to reporters and asking them to sit on the stories until they were told it was O.K. is legendary in WWII lore.

What's happened now is that every reporter out there wants to be a Woodward and Bernstein and "scoop" everyone else by saying they published something first. Even if someone gets hurt or killed in the process. Reporters just don't care about ethics any more.

[srellim234]

I agree the quality of journalism has deteriorated tremendously. It might be better but there's no UPI to compete wih AP any more and the AP monopoly means quality doesn't matter.

Likewise, Fox, MSNBC, etc. are so focused on their own agenda they aren't capable of handling news as news. It's all propaganda and talking points, right OR left. They can't just report that Bristol Palin is having a baby. They have to throw opinion into it and add either a praise or a negative spin depending on which side they're on. Editorial comment doesn't belong in the actual reporting of the news.

[audtatious]

Attacks against Palin are happening in most aspects of the Media. Even monthly Mags are going at it:

US mag today

US mag in June '08 (while Obama was still digging out of Rev Wright)

The NYTimes broke the story about Palin being part of the "Alaska Independence Party" for two years and the story has been passed all over as factual. Guess what, It's not. NYT has had to update their story:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...ember/

The Times now is simply trying to picture her as a huge bible-thumping right-winger who turned a nonpartisan town into a republican stronghold. They do a great job digging out the dirt by interviewing they guy she beat and they are making comments about people who declined to comment or actually lost lawsuits against her. Such wonderful non-biased reporting against someone with a 80%+ approval ratinghttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/09...login

Then the NY Times does an article about Palins husband and the hardships they claim he has had to face with raising their children and is having to deal with the nasty situation of the firing of the guy who would not fire the X-bro-in-law (nice they never mention why there was an issue with this guy stalking them and threatenting to kill them). What absolute BShttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/09...ml?hp

[szh]

It had nothing to do with a media bias to the left and you are the one taking "potshots" and skewing the story into something it's not.

Okay, what would you call the following from the story then. Remember that this was sent out before the actual speeches were even made:

Quote »Despite Thompson's remarks and McCain's declaration that he was satisfied with the scrutiny his aides had given Palin, there were fresh disclosures....The issue involves the dismissal of public safety commissioner Walt Monegan after he refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced the governor's sister.[/quote]This was supposed to be a story about the Convention ... not worrying about reporting "other stuff" - those are still open questions in general.

Reporters should report - not bring in extraneous stuff that had nothing to do with the events.

Reporters just don't care about ethics any more.

That certainly is very true.

Z

[themadscientist]

The funny part is even if every little trivial bit of pseudo scandal found to this point is true it does not change my choice.If she took bribes let's discuss that. The activities her daughters vagina have engaged in are irrelevant.

[Soravia]

The liberals are becoming very, very disgusting lately. First the anti-Hillary sexism, now they won't even let off a pregnant 17 years old.

[AZhitman]

Even Little Miss Couric got her empty-headed liberal butt handed to her last night...

She got lippy with Pawlenty and he shut her up with a smile...

Stay out of politics, Katie - You're a journalist. Ask questions and shut up - No one cares what you think.

[dusred]

Looks like The Onion was somewhat right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBrDzZCOQtI

[AZhitman]

Looks like The Onion was somewhat right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBrDzZCOQtI

"She'll quit when she's supposed to, on Election Day.... and she'll act surprised."

[audtatious]

The liberals are becoming very, very disgusting lately. First the anti-Hillary sexism, now they won't even let off a pregnant 17 years old.

Not only that but they cheated during all the caucus in order to make sure Obama won. There is plenty of evidence being presented "in house" that the party as a whole is sweeping under the rug in order for them to ensue the massiah was selected.

[smockers83]

The liberals are becoming very, very disgusting lately. First the anti-Hillary sexism, now they won't even let off a pregnant 17 years old.

To play devil's advocate, the GOP got pretty disgusting against Obama for awhile. However, they didn't go as low as attacking a 17 year-old girl that shouldn't even be an issue in the election process. Its a family issue, not a political issue.

[AZhitman]

I don't recall anything about his kids, and nothing about his wife other than jumping on some dumb comment she made (which was directly relevant to how she really feels about America).

I'd shlt myself laughing if his 15 year old daughter wound up knocked up in a year.

I take that back. I'd be sad and frustrated, because it'd be a young life waylaid and disrupted, and too late for it to matter politically.

[smockers83]

Right, but there were some accusations out there that were pretty ridiculous, but my point was they weren't as ridiculous as the ones the left is making.

[Jimefam]

Its just sick that you would want it to matter politically. Politicians on both sides are dirty now and nothing is out of bounds and its because everyone loves it. Just look at this board, every republican cheered like crazy when right wingers slammed hillary and on the left its no different. Politcs has turned into one big biased bitchfest.

[szh]

Just look at this board, every republican cheered like crazy when right wingers slammed hillary and on the left its no different.

Ummm ... FWIW, I am a Republican and I did not slam Hillary or cheered when anybody slammed her.

FWIW, I don't like Hillary (and feel that she should not be the POTUS), but that has nothing to do with whether she is a Democrat or a Republican. I dislike the sense of "politics as usual" that I got when I looked at her campaign.

I was on the fence about whether I would vote for Obama or McCain (my original choice was Edwards, fwiw - even though I am registered Republican). But, I am strongly leaning towards McCain for a number of reasons:

1. I think that Obama is talking a good line, but has not yet convinced me he can deliver. Too much rhetoric there still.

2. I like the fact that McCain picked a woman to be his VP candidate. Yeah, she is not perfect, but, having spent some time reading up, I respect her strong beliefs (some of which I do disagree with), her desire to clean up government, her desire to not think like a typical politician, her ethics.

3. I have always had difficulty with "too much spending" by the government. The rampant campaign money being spent by Obama does not bode well - it concerns me that his tax policies are that the "rich" are sitting there to be taxed harder and further. I think (and hope) that McCain will be the lesser of two evils on the topic.

4. I strongly dislike the mud slinging that has been, unfairly, piled onto Gov. Palin - particularly by the folks here. That was unfair, unwarranted and certainly dragging her children and husband into the fray just made me upset enough to get more on her side. After I started looking at her story, then I became interested in helping the McCain-Palin ticket.

Where are my political leanings? Mostly in the middle, with a lean/tilt towards conservative on some items, and lean/tilt towards liberal on others. I dislike extremism ...

NOTE: In my posts, I am NOT trying to slam Obama or Biden - certainly not strongly, and certainly not any mud-slinging with lies! If I make a mistake about any fact, then I apologize.

But, I do resent that the left-wing (and Democrat posters here) are slamming Palin unfairly - in particular, with attacks that appear to be targeted on her as a woman! That is not morally and ethically and humanly right!

I have tried to post positive threads about Palin and negative threads on the extremists (like the folks attacking the RNC delegates). These have wandered a bit off-topic ... but that is not too surprising, I suppose.

Hope that helps explain my perspective.

Z

[Jimefam]

All politics have devolved into rhetoric. The display by Rudy( who has milked 9/11 for all its worth the bastard) and the law & order guy( cant recall his name right now for some reason) for the latest proof. Nothing but stump speech punchlines and boogieman tactics. As i said both parties are filth right now because three decades ago politicians realized that in a true debate of ideas one side MUST lose. Rather than risk that they mudsling which polarizes the voters and leaves a smaller amount of people to have to convince with whatever clever theme your staff can think up.

[szh]

the law & order guy( cant recall his name right now for some reason)

Senator Fred Thompson.

Z

[hsckris]

US mag today

US mag in June '08 (while Obama was still digging out of Rev Wright)

The mass media generally sucks... How can anyone (from either party) say that this is fair and accurate journalism right here?

[AZhitman]

^ OUCH.

When you put it side-by-side, it's blatantly obvious.

I guess a vote is a vote, but I'd prefer the people who read "Us Magazine" DON'T vote for me.

[srellim234]

Unfortunately, even a traditionally conservative publication (although going left since Rupert Murdoch bought it) like the Wall Street Journal is subtly getting into the sensationalistic hype.

I opened up the paper this morning to be greeted on Page 1 to a picture of McCain on the tarmac at the airport to greet the Palin family arrival. Think it's McCain and Sarah? Maybe the whole family?

Guess again. Only three people in the picture. McCain, the pregnant teenage daughter and her boyfriend, identified by name and as the boyfriend.

[Encryptshun]

So here's what I don't understand about this "liberal" or "left-wing" media monicre.

Why, if you are running a business that depends on advertising money from big business, would you not only deliberately alienate half your audience but methodically attempt to tear down the ideology that supports your own advertisers? It just doesn't make any sense, and I can't see how they are getting away with it without going bankrupt.

Someone explain this to me, please. I'm no dummy, but I just can't see the logic in it.

[smockers83]

Well, the big companies also have to sell to liberals or else they alienate half the population as well. So in essence, the liberals support the GOP I guess

[Encryptshun]

Well, the big companies also have to sell to liberals or else they alienate half the population as well. So in essence, the liberals support the GOP I guess

Let's put this into a logic problem and see where it goes:

1. Liberals support increase taxation for big corporations2. Liberals buy stock in big corporations 3. Liberals consume goods/services provided by big corporations4. Corporations, in order to perform their fiscal duty and provide profits for ownship (i.e. shareholders) must raise prices to offset an increase in costs5. Increased taxation increases costs6. Liberals pay more for the products they buy7. Liberals make less off the stock that they hold8. Liberals support an increase in shareholder taxes

So, essentially, their fiscal mindset is to make it more difficult for they themselves to succeed at the American dream... ?

That's not liberal...that's masochistic.

[AZhitman]

I think it works this way:

Regardless of your "base", people aren't real "partisan" when it comes to their reading and viewing choices.

As we;ve seen here - there's Nissan enthusiasts from both sides of the fence.

So, sensationalizing the news draws people of both stripes to read / view... Whether they leave elated or aggro is irrelevant - They've viewed the publication or media, and they've been exposed to the commercials. Mission accomplished.

[Encryptshun]

Hmm. That's pretty much what I hear all around.

But it still doesn't make any sense to me why a news outlet would sensationalize one way versus another. Or are there just not enough hours in the day to try to fool all of the people?

I call that missed opportunity!