AP's Loven Describes Obama Speech -- 5-1/2 Hours Before It Began (See UPDATE on Cantor's Statement)

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

APabsolutelyPathetic0109Who knew that the Associated Press's Jennifer Loven has the ability to see into the future?

That must be the case, because yesterday she told us what had happened at Barack Obama's sort-of State of the Union speech -- 5-1/2 hours before Obama uttered a word.

As fellow NewsBuster Noel Sheppard is given to say, "I kid you not."

Loven's AP story carried at Breitbart (HT to Abe Greenwald a Commentary's Contentions blog via Instapundit) has a 3:30 p.m. Eastern time stamp:

APlovenObamaPrespeechHeadline022409

Obama's speech was scheduled to begin at 9:00 p.m.

Loven's before-the-speech as if after-the-fact review provides plenty of comic relief. Though she would be expected to have been given a pre-release copy of the speech, her use of the past tense gives readers the impression that the speech had already taken place. She even criticized Republicans for allegedly doing exactly what she was doing -- but they weren't (bolds are mine):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Standing before a nation on an economic precipice, President Barack Obama aimed to balance candor with can-do Tuesday night in his first address to a joint session of Congress. Millions more anxious Americans were tuning in on TV.

Obama was arguing that his still-unfolding economic revival plan has room for—even demands—a broader agenda including dramatic increases in health care coverage and wiser, "greener" fuel use. He was addressing an ebullient Democratic congressional majority and an embattled but reinvigorated GOP minority as well as worried viewers at home.

Just five weeks after his inauguration, Obama wasn't charged with producing a formal State of the Union status report. But for all intents and purposes, that's what it was: a night for the president to sketch out his priorities in a setting unmatched the rest of the year.

..... Comments on Obama's address came in early from Republicans, many hours before he had uttered a word. (see UPDATE below -- Ed.)

"House Republicans stand united in willingness to work with this president to try and tackle the very tough economic situation that is facing our families, to try and make some of the tough decisions together," said House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. But Republicans would stick to their principles, he said: "One is that Washington shouldn't be spending money that we don't have. And two, we shouldn't be raising taxes on businesses and families that can't afford to pay them."

Hey Jen, at least the Republicans were more than likely responding to the pre-release copy of the speech, and not pretending to know how the oratory was delivered. (But See Update below: Cantor was NOT reacting to the content of Obama's speech.)

Apparently, the AP has no embarrassment threshold. A later version of Loven's report at 4:11 Mountain time (6:11 Eastern, still almost three hours before the speech) at Salt Lake's Deseret News quotes the President as having "said" things before he even spoke:

APlovenObamaPrespeechQuotes022409

Commenter "chuck martel" at Greenwald's post was duly "impressed":

Wow! That’s amazing! Jennifer Loven, who’s going to win the Kentucky Derby? And the World Series? What am I going to get for my birthday? Is my daughter’s baby going to be a girl or a boy? There’s so many questions I want to ask you!

Here's a more pertinent futuristic question: Can anyone foresee a more glaring example of in-the-tank reporting than the Loven has just displayed?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

________________________________________________

UPDATE, 12:30 p.m.: Loven's contention that Eric Cantor's comments were "on" (i.e., directly related to) Obama's address are false, and I believe she could have and should have known that when she wrote her report.

I have spoken with and received an e-mail from a person in a position to know. This person was forwarded Cantor's e-mail containing a 1:35 p.m. time stamp. Its text reads as follows (web link lacking a time stamp is here; graphic below is from the e-mail forwarded to me to show the time the e-mail was originally sent from Cantor's office):

CantorEmailAheadOfObamaSpeech022409

Cantor Remarks on the President’s Speech Tonight

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) made the following remarks at the House Republican Leadership stakeout prior to President Obama’s speech to the nation tonight:

“Later tonight, we are going to have the opportunity to hear the President give his state of the nation address.  I believe that House Republicans stand united in willingness to work with this President to try and tackle the very tough economic situation that is facing our families, to try and make some of the tough decisions together.

“But there are some principles by which we're going to operate in proffering our ideas to the President and frankly to our Congressional colleagues on the other side of the aisle. One is that Washington shouldn't be spending money that we don't have. And two, we shouldn't be raising taxes on businesses and families that can't afford to pay them. What we have to do is to make sure that we are striving for restoring the financial security that people want and deserve, as well as the job security that they need.

“These are the principles, I believe, by which you will see the Republicans in the House come forward with a plan to try and address the economic woes facing families and try to right the ship of government as we continue to see the funding pretty much unlimited for just about everything that comes down the pike. We have got to change course. We have got to become smarter and simpler in terms of the type of solutions coming out of Washington. That's what the American people want. That's what they deserve.”

Cantor's title is less than perfect, and would have been clearer had it contained "upcoming" or some kind of future indicator. Nevertheless, nothing in Cantor's text indicates that he had an advance copy of the speech.

Because he didn't.

The person in a position to know I referred to above told me that Republicans got no information about the speech from the Obama administration until over 2 hours after Loven's report,  as follows:

  • Shortly after 6:00 p.m. -- GOP conference received excerpts from the White House Press Secretary, and a list of guests who would be in the First Lady's box.
  • Roughly 7:45 p.m. -- GOP conference received additional excerpts.
  • Shortly after 8:30 p.m. -- GOP conference received full text as prepared for delivery.

I'm not in a position to say whether this timing reflects typical protocol for speech releases by the White House to the opposition party. But I can say that Jennifer Loven gave readers the impression that Cantor was reacting to the speech itself when she characterized the congressman's statement as "Comments on Obama's address." The fact is, he in no way could have been commenting on the speech itself. It seems reasonable to believe that Loven, whose position as President of the White House Correspondents Association should make her one of the most in-the-loop reporters on matters such as these, knew that, or should have known that, when she wrote it. If she had any doubt about the basis for Cantor's remarks, she should have contacted Cantor or one of his advisers.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Poster Child for MSM

I'm guessing that Ms.Loven got a copy of the excerpts like everyone else yesterday afternoon, so she could have done a piece theorizing the reactions, but She Didn't. Instead, I'm guessing she figured she'd jump the gun on writing the post-address piece, maybe so she could go out and celebrate Mardi Gras instead of watching 50 minutes of rehashed campaign rhetoric...

 

 http://www.withbias.net

Might have just been an

Might have just been an eccentricly worded opinion piece that was also used as a test to see if anyone  actually reads AP boilerplate.  Also it got them some free PR.  Why should AP feel any shame?  It's not as if there is any mainstream news source that makes AP look bad in a head to head comparison.  People used to say, "It's good enough for government work."  And, since the Democrats are in power, shills like AP are more or  government subcontractors. 

Liberals' abilities to see into the future

I recall that there was a similar incident before the GOP convention in 2004, where a magazine inadvertently posted a "review" of the convention and the speeches on its website the night before the convention actually opened. Does anyone else remember that?

Hey Jenny

I m up for a new job next week, can you tell me if I will get the position?  I want to re-finance my home, will I be approved?  What an embarrassment, Goldberg book is ever so true.

 

O's last day 1-20-2013

Loven, the modern day

Loven, the modern day Pythia, sitting in a trance in her dark cave inhaling the intoxicating vapors.

Advance Posting

Lighten up  bit here! Jennifer Loven had an eight o'clock dinner date and interview with Jenn Abelman at the Boston Globe and couldn't watch the speech. 

I waited until after the

I waited until after the speech to write my analysis and this is what I came up with:

Obama's First Address to Congress Unimpressive

I guess it's hard to be in the tank for a guy who blames everything and everyone except real culprits for our current economic situation. It's also hard to be impressed by a guy who implies that our military tortures its prisoners. And it's also hard to find common ground with a guy who wants to expand government at an unprecedented rate and destroy the greatest economic system known to man - capitalism.

Oh yeah...and Obama also buys into the global warming hysteria. I thought he was supposed to be really smart. How do you reconcile the two?

*If you like the comments, check out the articles.

I had to work last night after work last night

so fortunately I wasn't exposed to this garbage.  I decided this was a blessing, so rather than listening to this speech I checked out the Dow and really wasn't suprised.  I have a great idea for economic recovery.  Obama, please keep your mouth shut/stop your campaign.

AP Past Tense

As a former managing editor who reluctantly used inferior AP copy, I can tell you that AP is infamous for its grammatical, spelling and factual errors.

I had to convince my colleagues to edit AP's stories, which is really frowns upon, but we did it anyway, even though AP protested.

We also edited out AP's constant biased reporting.

To add insult to injury, however, in the highest form of hilarity and irony, AP writers don't even follow their own AP Stylebook. 

AP is overpriced and hopefully it will change or go out of business, although that would be a shame for the people who work there, but it is a terrible monopoly with a leadership that believes in "interpreting" the news rather than "reporting" the news. 

The distinction is significant and signals why many readers have fled to the Internet, only increasing the problems for print newspapers as they lose advertisers for a variety of reasons, one of which is circulation.

However, you cannot blame lower circulation entirely on "more competition from other mediums."

Part of the decline in readership is because so many papers fill themselves with AP crap that people don't read.

They don't read it because it is usually poorly written, often biased and contains glaring factual errors.

I speak from experience, after having to pay AP exorbitant amounts of money. All I wanted for my local daily newspaper was one page of AP copy to keep those readers who wanted some national news happy, but my main reason was for sports, yet AP stuck it to us and wouldn't give us a decent price. No wonder it is trouble.

Does anyone really care if

Does anyone really care if the San Francisco Chronicle goes out of business?  I certainly don't and I sure don't give a damn about liberal journalists being laid off.  Good riddance.  Maybe they'll find other jobs at AP, Reuters, pMSNBC, or whatever other drive-by outlets that needs coffee brewers....

Oh, I love your graphic.

Oh, I love your graphic. May I borrow it for my blog when I criticize AP, like I did when it blamed tomatoes for the food disease outbreak this summer, despite the CDC even saying there was no proof of that? AP never corrected that mistake, nor did the San Jose Mercury News that wrote an editorial urging people to avoid certain tomatoes.

I wrote a blog about that and some editor wrote me back and said it wasn't her place to ensure that the information they used for the editorial was correct, that it came from an "authoritative" source.

I pointed out that even the CCC contradicted The San Jose Mercury's editorial and she still refused to print a correction. Thanks to idiot editors and journalists like her, the tomato industry took a huge hit.

 The Merc's refusal to print a correction is the same as The Portland Oregonian's refusal to correct a factual error I pointed out to it: the mayor's boyfriend was 17 when he kissed him in a bathroom.

As any adult knows, when two adults kiss, it is a sexual act, in the context of two individuals being sexually attracted to each other.

Yet The Portland Oregonian wrote me and cited its reporters' pedigrees, etc., and said I was insulting, yet still did not state that the even though the mayor and his teen lover said the teen was 17 when the first sexual act, a kiss, took place, The Portland Oregonian continues to lie and not make a correction by saying the sexual affair started when the young man was 18.

Had that been my daughter, I would say the sexual relationship had begun when she was 17 when a decades'-older man kissed her. That's not to say any of my three beautiful daughters would engage in such obscene behavior as kissing in a public restroom.

What is it with men kissing and have sex in public restrooms? Yuck.

The braintrust at The Oregonian also did not answer my question: why were these two in the restroom at the same time? Did they have bad salad at a City Hall potluck and had to rush to the restroom at the same time?

The answer is obvious: they were there because they were sexually attracted to each other. If kissing is all they did, the mayor still started a sexual encounter with a minor.

Despite what The Oregonian told me, I don't need a state investigation or other Oregonian reporters "working on this issue" of age to tell me what's right and wrong, sexual or not sexual.

This type of bias is why newspapers like The Chronicle are biting the dust. The sooner the better, although I feel sorry for those who will lose their jobs.

GFS...

don't get me wrong...I do feel sorry for those who may lose jobs at the Chron.  But another part of me says, most of these are the same people who have wronged others based on their biases.  Whatever happened to journalists' objectivity?  Put another way, would they feel sorry for me, not as a human being, but as a conservative, if I lose my job?

GFS ....

.... You are MORE than welcome to use "my" graphic.

I wrote a brilliant riposte

A week ago I wrote a brilliant riposte to Jennifer Lovens review of Obamas speech but the dog ate it. I knew he would.