The New York Post today has laid out the sordid tale of the AP's lionization of a convicted cop-killer, calling this criminal a "former freedom fighter."
The Post did a great Newsbusteresque job of detailing the AP's disgusting hero worship of this murderer, so I'll let them take it from here...
February 28, 2007 -- To those who remember the infamous 1981 Brinks heist in Nyack, Judith Clark is a self-indulgent '60s radical serving a well-deserved 75-year prison term for her role in the violent deaths of three heroic law-enforcement officers.
But to the Associated Press, which supplies news to the world, Judith Clark is a "former freedom fighter."
That's right. A "freedom fighter."
Now, maybe "convicted cop-killer" is too graphic for the AP, even though it's wholly accurate.
But "freedom fighter"?
Who's writing for the AP these days - Michael Moore?
Nevertheless, for several hours Monday night, that was precisely the unquestioned description of Clark that appeared in the lead sentence of a story that the AP sent out about her efforts to win a new trial.
Presently that description was altered to "a former black separatist"- with a note to editors saying the change was being made in the interest of "fairness."
Fairness? What about accuracy?
For one thing, though the leaders of the group belonged to the Black Liberation Army, Clark happens to be white.
The AP justified the change by noting that Clark had said the goal of the Brinks heist "was to finance a Republic of New Afrika consisting of former slave states."
(That's what they claimed, all right. But as Susan Braudy disclosed in her 2003 book about the case, "Family Circle," the real motive for the robbery was that BLA leader Doc Shakur needed money to pay his mortgage and buy cocaine.)
Still later, AP changed the story again. This time, Clark was referred to as "a former radical activist" - closer to the mark, but still rather a grand description for an accomplice to murder.
Clark was in the news in the first place because she's trying to get a new trial based on some hoaked-up technicalities. That's unlikely, but you never can tell.
So take a moment to think kindly of Sgt. Edward O'Grady and Officer Waverly "Chipper" Brown of the Nyack police and Brinks guard Peter Paige - dead before their time at the hands of Judith Clark and her accomplices.
"Freedom fighter," indeed.
It's no wonder that the purveyors of the so-called "news" in the USA are day by day losing their audience and their credibility.
The AP cannot even call a convicted murderer a murderer at this point without tipping their ideological hand.
Kudos to the New York Post. A Newsbuster blue ribbon to you!














Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Warner, the point of absurdity - zing went by so fast ...
February 28, 2007 - 08:20 ET by acaiguanaWarner, the point of absurdity - zing went by so fast most of us forget when it happened.
That would be the point where no (D)s are used after names; no race or ethnicity is used after 'alleged'; no church affiliation is used unless Christian; no event reported if it shines light on the 'good guys'; and no correction is made when adjectives like 'mandate' or 'consensus' are used.
But when it got to the point where adjectives are used to describe really despicable people who murder...
Even the MSM (I'm not sure the Post qualifies anymore since it seems to be trying at times to be rational) can't let it go, like Bill O'Rielly and the ACLU.
Oh well; it's all good. Even the average browser of paper has got to smile as he browses through the rags glancing at the absurd headlines being used.
"Cheney's Trip Too Secret". Duh.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
This sickest part of this par
February 28, 2007 - 08:41 ET by Warner Todd HustonThis sickest part of this particular AP debacle (there are so MANY after all) is the backpeddling they did.
The change upon change shows they have a problem with the editors BIG TIME.
Only when caught
February 28, 2007 - 09:35 ET by ecnirPBackpedeling only when they get challenged. Notice that the initial cut out of the newsroom won't have the description, only the updates as their work is reviewed by the (unpaid by AP) world. Makes you wonder why the good people of AP get paid for their efforts if it takes outside volunteers to get their work correct.
I'm not seeing it
February 28, 2007 - 10:06 ET by halfmanhalfamazingI've tried googling for it, but I don't see it online. The NY Post piece doesn't seem to contain a link either, or I just plainly missed it. Is this something that showed up in print only? I've seen the actual phraze "freedom fighter" about her........
http://www.cbsnews.c...
But it's not stating it outright. It's her words in quotation.
===========Before her trial, Clark told the court: "I wish to represent myself because, as a freedom fighter, I am the only one who can speak for myself and I can definitely not be represented by an officer of the court." ==============
I have no doubt that the AP actually did this. But I'd like to see it for myself.
The way I am reading this sto
February 28, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Warner Todd HustonThe way I am reading this story it is sort of inside baseball. The notations the Post is talking about where the editors were explaining changes comes from the AP journalist's feed where they make notations to news outlets, if I am not mistaken.
Here is the part in the story that explains this:
The upshot of the story is that the AP revised the story several times. This means the past versions are no longer available to the public and the Post witnessed this story as it was being published and re-published by the AP.
Bush
February 28, 2007 - 09:57 ET by iveseenitallIn the "minds" of the liberals at the AP, President Bush is a "killer" and Clark is a "freedom fighter". Liberals get it all backwards; sometimes on pupose, sometimes through their own ignorance.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
"...sometimes on purpose, som
February 28, 2007 - 10:02 ET by Warner Todd Huston"...sometimes on purpose, sometimes through their own ignorance."
They are one and the same to me!
Good point
February 28, 2007 - 10:11 ET by iveseenitallGood point, Warner.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
They thought they were going
February 28, 2007 - 11:01 ET by BruzillaThey thought they were going to be able to finance the start of a new country with the money they would get from a simple bank heist? I can see how Liberals could completely buy into that story.
As a former New Yoker I alway
February 28, 2007 - 10:31 ET by RayRioAs a former New Yoker I always read the NY Post going and coming back from work on the trains. They always write in a very clear manner. No nonsense. Their editorial page is top notch with the likes of Thomas Sowell, Michele Malkin and many others. If you see the paper on your local newspaper stand pick up a copy, its worth the read. I do still read once in awhile here in south Florida.
RR
I agree
February 28, 2007 - 10:59 ET by iveseenitallI agree, Ray. Unfotunately,there's always been an effort to paint the Post as a "tabloid", yet it's writing is clear and to the point, much better than the elitist NYT. Perfect for a busy New Yorker. Even when the Times was considered "repectable", it bloviated to the point of irritability. You don't go away from a Post article with a question about where the writer stands. The Times' purple prose often tries to strattle the fence in an effort to hide its liberalism.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal