Why would you think the AP was a reliable news source? Because you like phoney pictures? Not much else to recommend them.

The AP hires the best products produced by the left wing anti-american colleges. Like good little puppies the reporters do as the failed educational system told them to.  Nothing will change until someone (taxpayers) refuses to pay the bills at the elitest left wing 'brainwashing' facilities .

Old, Retired and glad of it.

Bill said the other night that he's gonna hold the MSM feet to the fire on their reporting overseas with Obama...SO WHAT?...he's only gonna report to <us>the choir.  AP isnt gonna report any slip ups, and IF they do, they'll put an addm.

I remember when the AP was actually regarded as an objective source of news--10-12 years ago. Then something happened.

In our area, people begin complaining about misquotes, made-up "facts", and a left wing slant. People who were actually involved in situations--meetings, political events, business events and affairs etc, were stunned when the AP reported the events completely inaccurately, or severely one-sided.

The problem grows. As newspapers downsize, (our statewide paper announced its third round of cuts this morning) they rely more and more on the AP as a news source. (They were always a major news source for local media).

So the AP has gone to pretty good (never great) to a completely unreliable news source in a pretty short time span.

The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?

BOR has never gone after the AP before.  So I wrote him an email congratulating him for going after the AP....the most dangerous media outlet in the world. 

And I got a personal response from Bill.  (I think...it was the first time I ever got a response.)

If he goes after the AP more often like he has with NBC news, it is a good thing for the overall cause, don't you think?  Bottom line, we need the general public to be thoroughly aware of liberal media bias.  It is the most dangerous weapon against democracy as we know it.

Here's a really naive question:  Just how hard could it be to replace the AP with a legitimate source?

If you bring together legitimate sources existing, which already provide a certain amount of original reporting: e.g., NewsMax, WND, FR, Hot Air, and so on...  I know each presents a LOTof opinion, but also certain amounts of straight news coverage.

These reports could be amangamated easily through an web-based service, and used by papers and sites everywhere.

Or am I being too naive?

BTW:  We could call it: The Dissociated Press

No, sut seriously, folks......

sr 

sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com

It's a well known fact that Ms. Loven is not objective-from our friends at Power Line, here's one example from 2004:

http://www.powerline...

"Jennifer Loven, the AP reporter who wrote the absurd "President Bush Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq" story dissected below, has a history of writing hit pieces on behalf of the Democratic National Committee. Such as this July 2003 outrage, a "news story" titled "White House can't make the questions go away". Here is how Ms. Loven begins her "news story" on the famous "sixteen words" controversy:

The White House defense of President Bush's now-disavowed claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa has evolved over the last two weeks: blame others, stonewall, bury questions in irrelevant information and, above all, hope it will go away.
So far, none has worked.

Now, that's not a bad beginning for a DNC press release. But for a wire service news report, it's ridiculous. Ms. Loven continues:

The flap started on July 6, when an envoy sent by the CIA to Africa last year to investigate the uranium claim contended that the Bush administration ignored his findings. In a New York Times op-ed article, Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, said it was highly doubtful that any transaction took place.
We know now, because of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, that Joe Wilson lied about what happened in Niger. Wilson was assigned to the Niger investigation at the urging of his wife, Valerie Plame. The Committee's report says that Wilson went to Niger and was told by that country's former Prime Minister that Iraq had, indeed, tried to buy yellowcake uranium there. Note the Wilson lie that Loven repeats in her AP article: "it was highly doubtful that any transaction took place." Right. But, of course, that wasn't what Bush said in his State of the Union address. He said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." And Wilson's report to the CIA confirmed that Saddam had "sought," but not obtained, uranium in Africa, specifically Niger.

Such nuance, needless to say, is completely beyond Ms. Loven. Her interest is in slandering Republicans, period. She continues:

That changed with Wilson's statements. Democrats in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail demanded an investigation into whether Bush purposedly exaggerated intelligence.
With its press staff unable to quell the controversy, the White House brought in Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rice, the president himself and even, later, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But, after two weeks, a White House usually adept at controlling stories by dismissing questions and waiting them out has had no luck.

The key questions -- asked over and over -- were not changing:

-Who knew what when -- especially the president?

-Why was it so important to include the statement in the speech?

-Who was responsible for putting it in?

-Why has the president refused to take responsibility for uttering it?

Only the White House's explanations shifted -- often contradicting itself in the process.

Ms. Loven's animus against the Bush administration helps to explain why a complete non-story, Bush's sixteen words, which, as we have argued, were almost certainly true, turned into a mini-"scandal" that ended only when Joe Wilson was exposed as a liar.

But the facts don't matter to Ms. Loven and the Associated Press. What matters, to them, is electing a Democrat as President."

I'm not in love with O'Reilly's personality. Sometimes I think his paternalism is way over the top and even out of place. I'm 50 years old. I don't want anyone talking down to me. But O'Reilly is one of the few people who will call down networks (NBC) and corporations (GE) by name and DARE them to sue him. It ain't slander if its true. You have to credit him for having no qualms about publicly airing out the idiots, propagandists, and outright criminals.