In today's Boston Herald, columnist Jules Crittenden calls on the mainstream media to confront the Associated Press over its "shoddy" work:
When a company defrauds its customers, or delivers shoddy goods, the customers sooner or later are going to take their business elsewhere. But if that company has a virtual monopoly, and offers something its customers must have, they may have no choice but to keep taking it.That’s when the customers, en masse, need to raise a stink. That’s when someone else with the resources needs to seriously consider whether the time is ripe to compete.
The Associated Press is embroiled in a scandal. Conservative bloggers, the new media watchdogs, lifted a rock at the AP.
Crittenden isn't just talking about the recent flap over bogus Iraqi "police captain" Jamil Hussein; he cites a pattern of slipshod and outright anti-American reporting from the wire service.
The AP, once a just-the-facts news delivery service, has lost its rudder. It has become a partisan, anti-American news agency that seeks to undercut a wartime president and American soldiers in the field. It is providing fraudulent, shoddy goods. It doesn’t even recognize it has a problem.
Crittenden also reminds us that the Associated Press has been trying to cover up the fact that their photographer, Bilal Hussein, is in custody because he was captured red-handed in an al Qaeda terrorist facility.
The AP has another Iraqi stringer problem. Photographer Bilal Hussein is in U.S. custody, and the AP has been clamoring indignantly for his release. AP reports have buried the U.S. explanation that Hussein is being held without charge because - quite aside from producing photos that showed him to be overly intimate with terrorists in Fallujah - he was in an al-Qaeda bomb factory, with an al-Qaeda bombmaker, with traces of explosives on his person when he was arrested.
Crittenden calls on the AP's customers, the major news outlets, to demand better performance from the wire service.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The AP's John Solomon dutifu
December 3, 2006 - 13:03 ET by ding7777The AP's John Solomon dutifully writes whatever Republican Oppo Research passes on to him and then awards Solomon a $500 weekly prize for it.
oppo
December 3, 2006 - 19:32 ET by Tom BlumerYawn.
In our dreams, maybe.
It is too late. It is over
December 3, 2006 - 13:08 ET by Red JeepIt is too late. It is over. Newspapers (and TV, as a news source) eventually were going to fade away as alternate news sources developed like the computer. But that demise would be far into the future if they had told the truth and kept opinions on the editorial page. But they have hastened their own demise by lies and shading the truth or omitting facts. Their virtual monopoly is gone. RIP newspapers whether you realize it or not, you have died as a news source.
tcurley@ap.orgEl Presidente
December 3, 2006 - 13:16 ET by bulletprooftcurley@ap.org
El Presidente de AP...funny, he still has not written me back...
Never use your gun to pistol-wip a Liberal. That could mar the finish.
DITTO!!!
December 3, 2006 - 16:33 ET by pocomocoDITTO!!!
Good for Crittenden. He's abs
December 3, 2006 - 13:27 ET by aeroGood for Crittenden. He's absolutely right.
Is "kafka" paying attention? (See comment thread from Greg Sheffield's Dec. 2 NB article on Iraq gov. media monitor.) See, kafka, it's not just us paranoid nutjobs out in the conservative blogosphere who think the AP is not doing its job. ;-)
Keep that Kard-Karrying Kan
December 3, 2006 - 13:41 ET by bulletproofKeep that Kard-Karrying Kanary Killer away from me!!
I'll expose you one day kafka!! Now if I could just remember where I put Frankenberry's phone number. (see my breaking news flash as provided to me by a very reliable source whom I have never met or seen before and no one could ever confirm: http://newsbusters.o...)
There are absolutes!
Never use your gun to pistol-wip a Liberal. That could mar the finish.
Crittenden is too kind
December 3, 2006 - 14:24 ET by acumen"The AP.....has lost its rudder."
Crittenden is too kind. For an organization that has merely lost it's rudder the AP certainly appears to be holding a steady course to port (left), particularly considering the turbulent seas of reality that confronts it on a weekly basis of late.
More like the once good ship AP has been hijacked in Arabian waters and converted to a mighty fighting vessel bearing down steady against the developed world - rudder in tack.
news
December 3, 2006 - 15:32 ET by iveseenitallWhat passes for news today is backyard gossip and left-wing drivel. Sensationalism first, truth last. Jounalism is dead.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
You said it. What's worse is
December 3, 2006 - 15:51 ET by bulletproofYou said it. What's worse is that they can't even smell the incentive to quit fabricating and manipulating.
Never use your gun to pistol-wip a Liberal. That could mar the finish.
AP
December 3, 2006 - 18:18 ET by pocomocoacumen,
A most-excellent metaphor.
Move along folks. Nothing w
December 3, 2006 - 16:02 ET by John in CAMove along folks. Nothing worth reading in the Boston Herald. Can't believe a word that right wing mouthpiece writes. /sarc
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
More proof that it's the As
December 3, 2006 - 16:35 ET by John in CAMore proof that it's the Associated (with terrorists) Press
(kafka, are you reading this today?)
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Gone back into hiding maybe?N
December 3, 2006 - 16:43 ET by bulletproofGone back into hiding maybe?
Never use your gun to pistol-wip a Liberal. That could mar the finish.
The AP is much more like a
December 3, 2006 - 16:42 ET by mytwocentsThe AP is much more like a submarine - DIVE, DIVE, DIVE!!!
AP
December 3, 2006 - 18:14 ET by pocomoco"Columbia Journalism Students Cheat on Ethics Test"
The AP must be replete with these people.
This morning I'm scanning t
December 3, 2006 - 18:26 ET by John in CAThis morning I'm scanning the headlines feeds on my homepage and come across this Associated (with terrorists) Press headline:
U.S. Forces Kill 6 Militants
...and I asked myself why they are are militants and not terrorists? To me a militant is someone who is fighting against the established government, who have a cohesive unit integrity, targets government forces and establishment. A terrorist is someone who fights against the people. Which is what I believe the terrorists are doing in Iraq. They purposely target civilian population to terrorize them in an effort to encourage them to turn against the government to escape the attacks.
So, I looked for a definition for militant (google search phrase - definition militant) and this entry was returned:
Definitions of militant on the Web:
showing a fighting disposition; "highly competitive sales
representative"; "militant in fighting for better wages for workers";
"his self-assertive and ubiquitous energy"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
word militant can refer to any individual engaged in warfare, a fight,
combat, or generally serving as a soldier. Journalists often use
militant as a purportedly neutral term for violent actors who do not
belong to an established military. Typically, a militant engages in
violence as part of a claimed struggle for achievement of a political
goal.
I found it noteworthy how journalists employ the term militant.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
John...Great point! I don't k
December 3, 2006 - 19:22 ET by bigtimerJohn...Great point! I don't know anymore if I would of noticed that right off...or at all..... the msm has had their way with words so much anymore it becomes common-place.
Great work by our guys! I had heard about this yesterday somewhere, but if it was reported the way it is written as you pointed out, it probably went right by me at the time, even though I knew I was just happy it got reported for a change, even though it was briefly and almost mentioned as a passing thought....
Sad....
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
John, you just may have helpe
December 3, 2006 - 20:18 ET by Indiana JoeJohn, you just may have helped me to come to grips with something about "Google searches" that has been bothering me, in re: definitions. See, I've had a "heebie-jeebie" feeling about the trend to use the Internet, wikipedia, Dictionary. com, et al, as "sources."
But definitions, meanings, context in ALL of these can be changed with the press of an "edit" button by someone, somewhere. Not to mention the growing trend to "steer" searches via the "Google Bomb" and similar such media manipulations.
When our definitions of words can be so fluid on a nearly moment-to-moment basis, I believe we need to look at something with a little more permanence as our guide. I'd rather have an OED or a real encyclopedia at hand than count on the constantly-changing "definitions" that the Internet seems to provide anymore. The easier it gets to manipulate information, the less trustworthy that "information" becomes.
As per your example, one can find definitions of "militant" to suit just about any use of the word one cares to employ. The subtle distinctions of the language are being slowly erased....
Talk about being able to "frame the debate!" And "newspeak" and "right-thought" will reign supreme.....
IndyJoe, I understand your
December 3, 2006 - 21:48 ET by John in CAIndyJoe, I understand your consternation. There is no definitive dictionary anymore, like there was with a paper copy of the Oxford English Dictionary.
I have problems with wikipedia. It's useful as a central point of hard incontrovertible facts. But as has been proven in the recent past, subjective matters can be easily skewed to one viewpoint or another.
Your comfort and faith in the old bound references is understandable. But that was in a world that didn't change as rapidly as it does today. As a kid growing up we had a set of encyclopedia's at home. But Mom and Dad bought them in like 1965. By the time I hit high school in the mid 70's, well needless to say they were sort of dated. I still spent hours at the local library doing research, and sometimes with several different named encyclopedia's. Of course, the Britannica was considered the ultimate word. But even then you could find varying facts in different sets, and then even more in periodicals. So, I'm not sure we're faced with a different set of problems today than we were before the internet. It's just easier to find the discrepancies and faster.
None of that is meant to say that I, or anyone, should take as gospel everything one finds in a google search. We still have to intake the information and make an educated, reasonable and rational decision on the validity of the facts and information.
My initial reason for doing the google search on militant was to clarify in my own mind what definition of militant was. I only posted the results when I came across the part about how journalists use the term. Which reinforces your viewpoint. The journalists have redefined the meaning of the word to help define their viewpoint.
At least, I think, maybe, that's what it all means.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
John,Yeah, I think we're pret
December 3, 2006 - 22:38 ET by Indiana JoeJohn,
Yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same page here. Just, it used to be that when a word was "re-defined" in something like the OED, there was a lot of debate and discussion and thought that went into it. Now, it just all seems so easily... mutable, maybe is the word I want. Definitions are getting "slippery," you know?
Wasn't it the Red Queen in one of the "Alice" stories who said, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I intend it to mean, neither more nor less?" Or words to that effect?
I'm afraid we're on our way through the looking glass.... or maybe we're already there...
Why would the MSM be unhappy
December 3, 2006 - 18:29 ET by Chris NormanWhy would the MSM be unhappy with the AP's shoddy work, when that shoddy work supports the MSM's biased agenda?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
I am glad this is in the Bost
December 3, 2006 - 19:16 ET by bigtimerI am glad this is in the Boston Globe..but honestly, who is paying attention? It certainly isn't the mainstream news media.
Thank you Al Brown, thank you Crittenden, thank you Newsbusters, thank you all others involved to get this story out...unfortunately this is just a small pebble in the pond...it is outrageous, depressing, disgusting, pitiful, especially during this war that this is not a headline in all the news, that there aren't investigators in the news service with inquiring minds that want answers....for all of us, and justice brought to those that participate with this act of treason....along with other instances that the AP have gotten away with unnoticed intentionally once again by the msm all for one goal, so we will lose this war, so the dem's will take over in '08, and they have destroyed President Bush and his administration....after-all what is more important than power...no matter whose life it costs or what part of the world it is in.
Agenda agenda agenda.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Poor quality from AP
December 3, 2006 - 20:36 ET by nkviking75As one who reads AP's broadcast wire on the air, I can attest to the fact that the quality of their work has not only gone downhill, but is now working on digging wells. Forget the bias issue for a second. The writing, especially in a small state bureau like Des Moines, Iowa, is just awful. That's especially true on weekends. I suspect j-school students are on duty then.
Rupert Murdoch, you could make your next fortune by launching the Fox News Channel of news wires. The competition would be good for everyone.
viking....Excellent Idea! Ser
December 3, 2006 - 20:40 ET by bigtimerviking....Excellent Idea! Seriously! I hope you have some kind of connections to make a serious suggestion as you have stated!
Competition would lead to facts...just the true facts!
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Small fish
December 3, 2006 - 20:45 ET by nkviking75Sorry, I'm a small fish in a small market. But maybe by bringing it up here, the media savvy readers of NB, not to mention its editorial staff, might be excited enough about the concept to bombard Fox and its parent News Corp with the idea.
AP
December 3, 2006 - 21:54 ET by pocomocoThe AP hasn't lost its rudder, they're just steering by a Middle-Eastern star.