PATHETIC Associated Press Bias: Waxman hearings "political fodder"

[jackstraw45]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070316/ap_on_go_co/cia_leak_congress_8

[e-mail]

Plame testifies in CIA leak hearings

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

"Democrats are eager make political fodder out of the 2003 leak scandal..."

Was Watergate "fodder"? Was Iran Contra "fodder"?

How is treason in wartime "fodder"?

[NightWatcher]

1. liberal media????

oh my dog!!!

[AndyA]

2. Fairness Doctrine. We need it now more than ever.

The corporate owned media must be held accountable for covering up the crimes of the GOP.

[tk2kewl]

4. I remember when news orgs simply reported facts.

Including opinion was reserved for the editorial page or an editorial spot at the end of a news broadcast. Doing it any other way was irresponsible journalism. :(

[jackstraw45]

5. Sad thing is AP articles are placed in newspapers/websites around the world...

They have a higher level, IMO, of responsibility for fairness and they are failing.

[whistle]

3. That is the right wing/republican spin alright

[PATRICK]

6. A very common tag

Always the Dems are highlighted, even in the shortest blurbs of emotional joy in political machinations. The near absence of this in GOP tags is telling, though when it occurs in either it is not so much fact or justice that is of any concern but the contest aspect. I noticed this years ago and if one had all the archives it could probably be mapped in occurrences.

One weak reason is the impression that Dems are innocently babbling continuously to reporters about the game and their joys and fears to the exclusion of real public service issues. Granted they might be more naively open and the GOP more taciturn and controlled in their leaks to make opinion itself reinforce spin in the game. When in deep trouble and division, the GOP will suddenly start blabbing their worries about the contest and finally get noticed as pols. Yet in most abbreviated articles no one is sourced or expected to be. Sources in short articles are given short sentences to reinforce the usual impression? Context? Reliability of the "Dems" so sourced? Forget it, these are news blurbs not punditry. There is no comeback, no rebuttal, no retraction or op-ed interest.

Just plain old poster propaganda with no competition and used as filler by every "news"paper in the country without any critical judgment. Clearinghouses of pundits and newswire stories impose another level of bias on their dependent newspaper clients. Gosh, there's a real bad one I can't remember that seems to have dropped off the radar- for good, I hope- a blatant mix of tripe and RW bias that loved to spread the old RW propaganda anecdote for illustrative color.