When Cindy Sheehan showed up outside of President Bush's Crawford, TX ranch in August, it was, to a certain degree, understandable that there would be some press coverage. She was there, the media was there, there wasn't a lot to write about. But the coverage was weak and biased in almost all cases, carrying her message uncritically, with no evaluation of who she was or what she was saying. The attitude seemed to be that she lost her son, she was criticizing the President, so she was credible and newsworthy, no matter what else there was in her views and attitudes. Indeed, I noted at the time how the Associated Press was acting as a PR firm for Sheehan, as opposed to an actual news organization. Well, Cindy Sheehan's making statements again. But, as she's criticizing Senator, and presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, it is apparently no longer newsworthy. On Saturday, four days ago, Cindy Sheehan made a public statement (OK, she posted it to Michael Moore's website) on Senator Clinton.
I thought Mrs. Clinton listened, but apparently she didn't because immediately afterwards she said the following to Sarah Ferguson of the Village Voice: "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw." That quote sounds exactly like what the few Republicans I talked to that week said. Making sure that our children did not die in "vain" sounds exactly like something George Bush says. A "date" for withdrawal? That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me. That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me. What Sen. Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party talking points I heard from Senators Dole and McCain....I don't believe she is passionate. I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys.
So I wondered how the AP would cover that. After all, they provided a willing conduit for all of her Bush criticism. (Or at least all of her Bush criticism that would not immediately strike the majority of Americans as either crackpot or un-American - they never bothered to mention any of that criticism.) So, if she was newsworthy in August, she should still be newsworthy in October, right? If her criticisms of the current President are relevant, aren't her criticisms of the hopeful future President? Apparently not at the Associated Press. Four days later, and there's been no sign of any AP story crossing the wires carrying that criticism of Hillary Clinton. It's almost enough to make one suspect that the Associated Press has an agenda beyond straight news... Lyflines - Lyford's other blog…
