FOX News doctors AP reports to mimic White House terminology

[Roland99]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502230006

Since April 2002, FOX News has consistently doctored Associated Press articles featured on the FOX News website concerning terrorist attacks in the Middle East to conform to Bush administration terminology. Without any editorial notation disclosing that words in the AP articles have been changed, FOX News replaces the terms "suicide bomber" and "suicide bombing" with "homicide bomber" and "homicide bombing" to describe attackers who kill themselves and others with explosives. In at least one case, FOX News actually altered an AP quote from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) to fit this naming convention, and then revised it to restore the quote without noting either the original alteration or its correction.

The Associated Press noted in April 2002 that FOX News first began using the term "homicide bombing" in its own reports immediately after Bush administration officials -- such as then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer -- adopted the term. While other news organizations continued to use the term "suicide bomber," the AP reported, "Dennis Murray, executive producer of daytime programming, said executives there had heard the phrase <"homicide bombing"> being used by administration officials in recent days and thought it was a good idea."

But Media Matters for America has found that FOX has applied the "homicide" terminology not only in its own original reports, but also in the AP reports that it publishes on its website. Readers are led to believe that the AP itself uses the "homicide" terminology, when in fact it does not. According to a Media Matters search, the AP has used the terms "homicide bomber" or "homicide bombing" when referring to terrorist attacks in only one article, published on May 7, 2004. These terms have otherwise appeared in AP articles only in quotations.


WOW!

Look at those doctored examples. Amazing!

[Rush1184]

1. Am I supposed to be surprised...

Can't the AP sue Fox for re-wording their articles and posting it as an AP article? Seriously, if I was a writer and someone edited my work like that with out my consent and published it, I would be livid.

[Canuckistanian]

2. Hillary should comment on this, too

The person quoted should have the right to expect their words to be reported verbatim.
Otherwise, one might think there's a biased.... um, never mind.

[punpirate]

4. Would be fun if they...

... cancelled their contract and cut off Fox from all news feeds. Fox blow-drys everywhere would have to actually go out and report the news, instead of pontificating about what they read on the wire.

:evilgrin:

[KharmaTrain]

3. Rewriting Wire Copy...Always Been Going On

Sorry, no scandal here. As I was told in Journalism class, this is a "wire service"...that it's mean to be rewritten or edited to fit the format, time or space within a newscast...or webpage. The client pays AP for the information and can paraphrase or re-write it as they see fit. If we wanted AP verbatim, we could just take their audio feed.

While it's considered proper for a wire story to be attributed with the (AP) on the byline, the exact wording can be, and is altered regularly by hundreds of writers and copy editors.

[BuyingThyme]

6. I beg to differ. It is ABSOLUTELY a scandal when

a so-called news organization changes copy to fit the agenda of political organizations.

No question about it.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Faux Is News?

That's news to lots of people...but, assuming you're trying to yell fire, this is a cricket lighter.

Anyone who sits down to put words on paper will bring some kind of bias in the way they chose their words. This is basic J-101. Also, that readers chose these publications due to that style and expect a certain "perspective". For example, many times a story about your area that is put on the national wire will be re-written with a more local flavor (addresses, neighborhoods) to enhance a story.

Your bitch, and valid, but far from a scandal, is the tone in how the copy is re-written. There was an excellent thread here the other day about "Gannon" lifting stuff from RNC releases and how that wasn't plagarism since PR pieces are designed to be copied and modified (especially by friendly third-parties).

By now it's black & white about Faux...I'm more concerned about the misinformation CNNServative tries to present as "the most trusted name in news" when they're subtling slanting their coverage and the way stories are presented. If you're looking for a reason to yell fire, I'd suggest you look over there.

[BuyingThyme]

8. You're the only one throwing straw into a fire.

I just have a problem with an administration that can, by proclamation, change the wording of an AP story.

Pretty simple.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Proclamation?

I didn't get the memo on that one?

Does this regime manipulate or manufacture news? Yes. Do all governments? Yes. Do they attempt to spin the coverage? I don't get your point.

I listen to AP News daily and, while I think they lean more right these days than they used to, they're still reporting daily combat battles and deaths the corporate media generally ignores and more "hard news" in 5 minutes than the cable networks do in 5 hours.

If you're asking people here to get pitchforks and torches because Faux doctors news stories and lacks any credibility, I think you're gonna need a bit more than that. Mr. Franken beat ya to it.

[BuyingThyme]

11. Let me know when you run out of straw.

In the meantime, you might want to re-read this thread. You might even want to read the article it references; people have been known to do that.

Then you can cut some more straw, light more fires, and put more words into people's mouths.

But count me out.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Putting Words?

I express only MY opinion and was attempting something called dialogue. Obviously this doesn't seem to fit your agenda. Sorry I couldn't play your game.

[Synnical]

10. I agree - and most news sources (online anyway)

Nowadays cite that the story has been supplemented by local reporters.

That said, I recall thinking back in 2002 when Ari first mentioned "homicide" bombers as opposed to "suicide" bombers, and Rush immediately picked-up on the term, that I hoped the AP and others would not start using the term simply because the WH demanded it. Mostly, the Corporate Media did not. Sad to learn that the AP now has begun to do so.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[SouthernDem2004]

5. Yea but all the networks use the term.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. No they don't. I'm not aware of one network aside from FOX that

routinely uses the term "homicide bomber" when referring to a suicide bombing. Not CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC from what I've seen, or MSNBC.

Can you provide any links showing examples of this?

[SheepBootHero]

14. Why is there no AP story on this rather than mediamatters.org?

If AP is the victim I would expect them (a major player) instead of a third party like MM.org to expose such a scam. Where is the AP on this?

[Roland99]

15. Good point...

1) They don't care
2) They are in cahoots
3) They are being told to keep quiet?