PDA

View Full Version : The smoking gun



budanski
09-05-2004, 01:51 AM
The smoking gun

The Amercian Thinker (http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3812)
September 4th, 2004

The Associated Press, a powerful worldwide news source owned by its member daily newspapers, has perpetrated a vile and slanderous lie about President Bush and his supporters, and been caught read-handed. The smoking gun exists safe and sound in the cache memory of countless blog sites. The AP's reporter wrote a dispatch claiming that when President Bush told a rally of his supporters in West Allis, Wisconsin that President Clinton had been hospitalized,

“the audience "of thousands booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."

Within seconds, the AP dispatch went around the world, and the lie was repeated. In point of fact, eyewitnesses and listeners to radio and television reports could hear that there was no audible booing, but there was supportive applause when the President called on everyone to pray for ex-President Clinton’s recovery.*

Unfortunately for the AP, we live in the age of the blogosphere. Almost as quickly as the lie was spread, bloggers started work documenting the report and its factual refutation. Recordings of the crowd's reaction, contradicting the AP, are avilable to anyone on the web, courtesy of America's blogforce.

Caught, the AP behaved disgracefully. They pulled the byline appearing on the report, one Tom Hays, who appears to work in New York, and issued a corrected report, changing “boos” to “oohs,” perhaps to protect itself and claim an innocent mistake. Of course, that would not explain the “Bush did nothing to stop them” slander.

Even more tellingly, AP moved to cover its tracks, pulling the original report from the Lexis/Nexis database, effectively throwing it into Orwell’s Memory Hole. Jonathan Last (http://galleyslaves.blogspot.com/2004/09/ap-disappearing-news-since-2004.html)*summarized its behavior as follows:

First of all, good for the AP for fixing the faulty reporting and including what seems to be an accurate description of the Republican crowd's reaction to bad news about President Clinton's health.

But the AP's conduct with regards to the rest of this story is not reassuring. We have an un-bylined bit of faulty reporting which was incorporated into the bylined work of another reporter without accreditation. After being confronted by the blogosphere, the AP pulled versions of the bad reporting from the web and the first instance of it from Lexis-Nexis. After it was revealed here at Galley Slaves that the bad reporting lived on in other versions of the story in Nexis, the AP went into Nexis and disappeared it from there, too. Then, they inserted a cleaned-up version with no time-stamp whatsoever. By the time media reporters like Jim Romenesko and Howard Kurtz and Jack Shafer get back to the office on Tuesday, there will be no story, because the AP will have completely altered all of the evidence.

In fact, as it stands right now, the only evidence that the AP ever made this enormous error is on blogs, such as this one, which copied the offending stories--remember, Lexis-Nexis does not page-cache the way Google does.

The AP's conduct reminds me of the famous Soviet picture of the Bolshevik leaders sitting on the couch. It began with the entire high command, and over the years, as individuals fell out of favor and were disappeared, was airbrushed over and over until, in the end, it showed only Lenin and Stalin, who were mysteriously seated on opposite ends of an enormous sofa.

Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007712.php)*summarized the damage done by the false report:

The AP's lie is spreading rapidly around the globe. Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/09/03/boo/index_np.html) says: "Audience boos as Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery." WSTM television (http://www.wstm.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936) in New York has a slightly different version of the story, with an AP copyright, which says: "Many in Bush's audience booed when Clinton's name was mentioned. The president made no comment on that and continued with his rally speech." WRIC television (http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936) in northern Virginia has the same "many booed" story. In Iowa, KWWL television (http://www.kwwl.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936) reports that "Many in Bush's audience booed when Clinton's name was mentioned. The president made no comment on that and continued with his rally speech." The same misinformation is being promulgated in Georgia (http://www.walb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Oklahoma (http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Arkansas (http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Mississippi (http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), California (http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Tennessee (http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Indiana (http://www.wane.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), the Carolinas (http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Kentucky (http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Louisiana (http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Ohio (http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257936), Minnesota (http://wcco.com/water/watercooler_story_247163112.html), and New York again (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--bush-clinton0903sep03,0,5995015.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire).

I'll stop there, but there are many more. Do you suppose that all of these news outlets will offer corrections? What proportion of the people who hear this story will ever find out that it was a complete lie, fabricated, apparently, by a Democrat who works for the AP?

To keep in touch with this rapidly-developing story, see Instapundit (http://www.instapundit.com/), the de facto central clearinghouse for blogosphere news. Its AP-gate information can be found here (http://instapundit.com/archives/017600.php), at least for now.

The mainstream press is already facing a crisis of credibility. The blogosphere has a new opportunity to report the compelling information the establishment press will not cover – in this case about the misbehavior of very news agency they collectively own, and on whom they rely for a huge percentage of their content. Christmas in Cambodia and the Swiftees were a non-event -- except that the blogosphere got ahold of the matter, and wouldn't let go until all aspects of it had come in for scrutiny by a swarm of websites.

It required roughly ten days for the old media to acknowledge that their censorship of the Swiftees could not hold. Perhaps this story will take as long to break through, but such is the sense of outrage current in the blogosphere that this one will not disappear either.

What does AP need to do, if it wishes to avoid destroying its own credibility over the next two weeks?

One, it must acknowledge that it is responsible for an outright hoax, consciously intended to damage the image of President Bush and his supporters. The outright fabrication of* "did nothing to stop them" proves malicious intent.

Two, it must apologize to President Bush and his Wisconsin supporters.

Three, it must publicly identify all the people who wrote and approved the issuance of the fraudulent story.

Four, it must present to the public the backgrounds of those people identified in step three, including identification of all other political stories written by them concerning President Bush and other Republican candidates.

Five, it must call a press conference, identifying it as a historic occasion, and publicly apologize.

Six, the staff identified in step three must be fired, and the top management of AP must resign. They permitted an organization to grow which casually believed, without checking, the worst sort of personal character slander of an entire large class of people. And we're giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Seven, the AP must launch an affirmative action program to recruit conservatives at all levels, to correct the systematic discrimination which has enabled such frauds to pass muster in its editorial screening process.

That’s just for starters.

This story has it all. Human interest. Misconduct. A cover-up. And it has legs. Ex-President Clinton's health will be in the news for months. The Presidential campaign has 8 weeks left to it. Press bias continues. This one gets hearts beating faster, because it is the smoking gun proving proving hideous press bias at the core of the estblished old media.

AP-gate has only just begun, and Woodward & Bernstein's latest incarnations are all over the blogs.

video of the event (http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/09/bloggers-bust-ap-no-booing-at-bush.html)

Hot Lips
09-05-2004, 02:08 AM
They certainly need to look into the staff that let it go through and why.

Siddar
09-05-2004, 05:10 AM
Why should AP doubt the story given it by its reporter?

The blame here falls on the reporter who betrayed his obligation to report the truth a news agency shouldnt have to verify every story its reporters submit. It should be able a to asume its reporters are telling the truth as given.

The key here is to make sure people you hire to be your reporters are commited to telling the truth.

Now if AP had prior knowledge that this reporter was a lieing scumbag then blame falls on them as well.

mobster
09-05-2004, 05:26 AM
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/bush.mp3

The real thing, listen for yourselves. Though I personally loathe him and regard as a liar and an asshole for cheating on Mrs. Clinton and THEN lying about it again, I wish Mr. Clinton a speedy recovery and only wish him the best. There is NOBODY (except UBL) who I wish ill will too, well, maybe SecretSquirell, but that'll come soon enough, so let's all hope for the best for Billy, he's a ****head, but he doesn't deserve to die. I personally wish him the best and hope the makes a full recovery. I do afterall respect the hell out of Mrs. Clinton and hope she's okay as well. My prayers are with them and I hope they can come out of this okay, I'm sure they're good people but I'm also sure they kinda suck at politics. God bless them both as well as their daughter Chelsea.

Deuterium
09-05-2004, 11:10 AM
This should surprise no one. Yes the press is biased. Yes they have an agenda. Yes Lib journalists overwhelmingly outnumber Conservative journalists. Luckily, unlike what OB and SS think, journalists don't have mind rays that control the way we think. Thanls for the Article Budanski.

scm77
09-05-2004, 11:33 AM
Why should AP doubt the story given it by its reporter?

The blame here falls on the reporter who betrayed his obligation to report the truth a news agency shouldnt have to verify every story its reporters submit. It should be able a to asume its reporters are telling the truth as given.

The key here is to make sure people you hire to be your reporters are commited to telling the truth.

Now if AP had prior knowledge that this reporter was a lieing scumbag then blame falls on them as well.

It may be the "reporters" fault but the AP did "report" it and bottom line is they are responsible for what they report.

And that is just a disgrace.

Hot Lips
09-05-2004, 11:52 AM
What is stopping conservatives from establishing their own media venues if the popular notion is that most media's are biased and liberal?

We have two newspapers in Pittsburgh. One is more conservative than the other. Many cities would benefit from a two newspaper market, but no one is stepping up to establishing an alternative in many of them.

Deuterium
09-05-2004, 12:03 PM
What is stopping conservatives from establishing their own media venues if the popular notion is that most media's are biased and liberal?

We have two newspapers in Pittsburgh. One is more conservative than the other. Many cities would benefit from a two newspaper market, but no one is stepping up to establishing an alternative in many of them.


I agree, nothing is stopping anyone. Conservatives own talk radio. Libs scream about this fact. Libs own NPR, PBS, and all the majors with the exception of FOX, conservatives scream about this. Even though FOX is winning in overall Nelson ratings the combined totals of the majors and PBS outnumber FOX. I personally don't have a problem with ANY of this. When I drive to work and before PT I listen to NPR. During office work I listen to Rush. I listen to these polar opposites knowing full well their biases and viewpoints. I am my own mental commander. I steer my ship. It is also incumbent upon the individual to seek out news. So your market is slanted to one side, use the Internet. The problem I have is with reporters claiming no bias. This is just preposterous in my viewpoint. The above news story just proves this point.

SpazzMunky
09-05-2004, 12:03 PM
I don't want to head toward the European style of reporting, where papers blatantly cater to the left or right.

ibstolidude
09-05-2004, 03:45 PM
Why should AP doubt the story given it by its reporter?

The blame here falls on the reporter who betrayed his obligation to report the truth a news agency shouldnt have to verify every story its reporters submit. It should be able a to asume its reporters are telling the truth as given.

The key here is to make sure people you hire to be your reporters are commited to telling the truth.

Now if AP had prior knowledge that this reporter was a lieing scumbag then blame falls on them as well.
yes everyone knows spin is only part of the conpiracy that goes all the way to the top when it is done from the other side

Hot Lips
09-05-2004, 04:29 PM
There will always be a slant on any news story you read even if it's subtle. Right or wrong, it's human nature (take the way people pick and choose what articles to post and what facts to accept in this forum) and sometimes it's just bad reporting sometimes it's an agenda from a hire authority within the organization. No one can expect to be spoon fed the whole truth. You have to go out and read as much as you can from both side and realize that somewhere in between is the truth.

Most people, however, seek out news that merely reinforces their own opinions and chalk anything contrary up to lies/exaggerations by the opposition.

Deuterium
09-05-2004, 10:14 PM
There will always be a slant on any news story you read even if it's subtle. Right or wrong, it's human nature (take the way people pick and choose what articles to post and what facts to accept in this forum) and sometimes it's just bad reporting sometimes it's an agenda from a hire authority within the organization. No one can expect to be spoon fed the whole truth. You have to go out and read as much as you can from both side and realize that somewhere in between is the truth.

Most people, however, seek out news that merely reinforces their own opinions and chalk anything contrary up to lies/exaggerations by the opposition.

How true. Guilty as charged.....Sometimes.

OB Kenobi
09-06-2004, 12:10 AM
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0903041nys8.html

usa320
09-06-2004, 12:57 AM
wtf does that have to do with anything OB Kenobi???

VorpalDoom
09-06-2004, 03:14 AM
I have evil mind rays to make you ignorant to the parial truth...

*pew**pew**pew*

Hah! now I got you! p-)

OB Kenobi
09-06-2004, 05:18 AM
wtf does that have to do with anything OB Kenobi???

The website was called The Smoking Gun. I didn't care too much for the original post, which tries to insinuate the old "vast left-wing media conspiracy" again.

Somebody wrote a bad story, the newswires pick it up without fact checking, someone else picks it up. It's not a conspiracy, it's people being lazy.

chauncy republicans
09-06-2004, 12:15 PM
I just want to know where this Liberal press was lurking in the Clinton years. :roll:

2Sheds_Jackson
09-06-2004, 01:45 PM
wtf does that have to do with anything OB Kenobi???

The website was called The Smoking Gun. I didn't care too much for the original post, which tries to insinuate the old "vast left-wing media conspiracy" again.

Somebody wrote a bad story, the newswires pick it up without fact checking, someone else picks it up. It's not a conspiracy, it's people being lazy.

As is always the case, it's not the original act that gets people in trouble, it's the cover-up afterwards. It appears that in an effort to mount some kind of damage control, AP started fiddling around with the facts & spinning the story - instead of issuing a clear-cut retraction, or something similar. The blame for that cannot be attributed to the original author of the story.

The spinning of the story required the action of a number of individuals. It cannot said to be vast, but it is certainly by definition, a conspiracy.

BlackRain
09-06-2004, 03:07 PM
There will always be a slant on any news story you read even if it's subtle.

The AP story was not a slant on the news as it occurred but a complete fabrication of the events.

The reporter, for whatever reason, lied but to what end?

Perhaps this had something to do with it. NYT Columnist Finds Huge Bias for Kerry Among Reporters (http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0802.asp)

Now it has gone beyond 'bias' to outright lies and manipulation by news reporters all in an effort to elect a Democrat. Sad, really sad. No wonder the American public is leaving traditional mainstream media in droves.


Tierney describes an informal survey he conducted at a press party at the Democratic convention. Cleverly, he avoids asking journalists bluntly, "Who did you vote for?" Instead he offers the more benign-sounding, "Who would make a better president?"

He describes what he learned: "We got anonymous answers from 153 journalists, about a third of them based in Washington. When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic."

Hot Lips
09-06-2004, 03:31 PM
There will always be a slant on any news story you read even if it's subtle.

The AP story was not a slant on the news as it occurred but a complete fabrication of the events.

The reporter, for whatever reason, lied but to what end?

Perhaps this had something to do with it. NYT Columnist Finds Huge Bias for Kerry Among Reporters (http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0802.asp)

Now it has gone beyond 'bias' to outright lies and manipulation by news reporters all in an effort to elect a Democrat. Sad, really sad. No wonder the American public is leaving traditional mainstream media in droves.

You'll note that in my very first post I did say that this incident needed to be looked into. Slants on stories are inevitable and not feasiblely controllable. It's up to the reader to educate themselves from multiple sources. I'm not going to hold the entire AP and reporters in general responsible for the actions of one nor even a handful. I work for a conservative media and know that there is good and bad within the industry as with any business. There are enough news sources from both sides that people can judge for themselves.

But as I stated earlier --- you can't force reporters to exclude their own views from their work. You can ask for this, you can hope for this, but there is no way to really police that. If you make sure that the number of right and left news sources are 50/50 --- people will naturally gravitate towards the media that reenforces their own beliefs. Few people take the time to really try and seek the truth. They just cling to what makes them feel they are right for thinking the way they do.

OB Kenobi
09-06-2004, 08:54 PM
Speaking of conspiracies in the media...


According to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, "In the final days of the 2000 presidential campaign, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review publisher Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime conservative activist, ordered all photographs and prominent mentions of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore removed from the front page of the paper. As a result, the paper's pre-election Sunday edition had a front page featuring George W. Bush in every campaign-related headline and photograph. A story about a Gore rally held in Pittsburgh, originally slated to run alongside a Bush piece on the front page, was moved to the inside of the paper. According to an account in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (11/8/00). Tribune-Review managing editor Robert Fryer 'tried to dissuade Scaife but was overruled.'"

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/scaife/scaife.php