Well look at this:

[133724]

ABC News:

Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2829290


CNN News:

Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/27/iraq.protest.ap/index.html

CBS News:

Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/27/national/main2404540.shtml

Exactly the same words in their reeports.....

What a piece of CRAP...

[eleny]

1. Yes, they all grabbed the Associated Press story

[133724]

4. Did any of them have a reporter on the scene or did they just watch cspan

[WiseButAngrySara]

2. How utterly repulsive! Do we have a free press or parakeets? ...n/t

[leftchick]

8. mina birds

and dumb ones at that, :puke:

[TheDebbieDee]

17. They're parrots, alright!

[mmonk]

18. Echo chamber

[otohara]

3. They All Subscribe to The AP

that's the deal

[Olney Blue]

5. Let me rewrite: Convinced that the world can't wait...

[spanone]

6. It's the same story....very bizarre.

K&R

[133724]

9. Yes it is very bizarre

but then we live in Bizarro' world

[Richard D]

7. It's not a conspiracy . . .

. . . just an AP news release, printed just as the AP writer wrote it.

[133724]

14. So it's OK for one writer to influence about 90% of the market????

is it OK for one reporter to report for all 3 networks and influence about 90% of the news market???

remember the FCC threads about about market ownership???? that it is ok for one network to own 32 or so percent of the market...

It seems to me that bush co is able to get around that requirement and claim 80 to 90 percent of the market simply by controlling AP rather than individual networks....

[Richard D]

15. Ok or not . . .

. . . it's the way news services have operated for a long time.

[Liberal In Texas]

10. Rip 'N Read.

I guess the networks are down to the level of 200th market radio stations.

Pathetic.

[AlCzervik]

11. lazy bastards, thats cheating imo. like they couldn't dispatch reporters

there?

[frogcycle]

12. egad! the little (AP) at the beginning means

it is a wire story. Associated Press writes it, puts it out on the "wire" (old-fart talk for telegraph) and the subscribers pick it up and run it. OF COURSE its the same.

[LibDemAlways]

13. From the CNN story video link:

"Watch women in funny hats mock President Bush's 'urge to surge.'"

So the anti-war crowd is a bunch of "women in funny hats...." How dismissive. What bullshit.

And, all 3 reported the crowd at under 100,000. They weren't there apparently. How would they know?

[133724]

16. Exactly my point...

I've heard of other estimates ranging from 130K to over 600K.


on edit:

He who controls AP controls the world.....

[133724]

19. Ok maybe it's not a consperecy

2. Who owns The Associated Press?
The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html#2

BUT IT SURE DOESN'T HELP THEIR CREDIBILITY.....

ESPECIALLY IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGES....