Sounding off
Curses on the Associated Press. I mean it. We at WORLD pay them a LOT of money, and in these last days of the election we get embarrassingly one-sided so-called journalism. Did I say it’s embarrassing?
On some of the AP stories we’ve linked to from WORLD’s home page, there are boxes with further links to multimedia presentations created by AP, some of which can be highly educational. Today, however, there were links to Sarah Palin and Joe Biden background segments. The Biden presentation gives a timeline of his storied career, and a click takes you to veteran AP writer Ron Fournier’s analysis of Barack Obama’s VP pick.
Now to “Palin on the Campaign Trail.” Click that one and you find a slideshow titled “Republicans spent $150K to outfit the VP candidate and her family” with a bent-over Palin caught off-guard in her best Tammy Faye moment. Anyone who has seen Palin on the campaign trail is likely to tell you she is substance and style, in that order. And anyone remember that Hillary Clinton hit piece on the cost of her wardrobe, just for comparison’s sake? No, you won’t. There’s never been one on Hillary’s handmade suits.
Fast forward to coverage of today’s news. Be a media analyst with me for a minute and compare this report from AP of Palin’s Ohio speech on energy, with its hard-hitting critique starting in the fourth paragraph, to AP’s coverage of Joe Biden’s speech in Florida, in which he asserts that Obama will create 120,000 jobs in that state. Period. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s nothing in this story calling Biden’s assertions into question.
We hope WORLD won’t be long dependent on AP for great photos and broad-based reporting (Mickey’s working on that). Because too often its depth runs in only one direction.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top50 Comments to “Sounding off”
Would you care for some cheese with your whine?
Report comment to moderator
I am finding it a bit bewildering that a member of the media is complainging abuot the media.
This feels a bit reentrant.
Report comment to moderator
“We hope WORLD won’t be long dependent on AP for great photos and broad-based reporting (Mickey’s working on that). Because too often its depth runs in only one direction.”
Exactly. Good for you. That’s the way to deal with the bias in the media. Create alternatives.
And DC Lawyer calls it whining to point out media hypocrisy only because he relies on the media’s putative “objectivity” to support his own beliefs. Reverse the situation (as when the subject of Fox News comes up), and he’ll be the lead whiner and cheese-eater of the group.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, don’t feign bewilderment. If you’re bewildered, it’s because you don’t know the difference between a small, self-acknowledged partisan magazine that serves a limited audience and a global news service that purports to be objective. Again, the only reason for your tut-tutting here is because you agree with the media’s liberal viewpoint.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly. Good for you. That’s the way to deal with the bias in the media. Create alternatives.
Yeah! Like Fox! World is practically Fox already! Should be an easy transition!
Report comment to moderator
CBS is reproting on things other than Socialist Sarah’s wardrobe:
Palin Target Of New Ethics Complaint
CBS News Investigative Unit Has Learned Of New Complaint Related To Travel By Alaska Governor’s Children
The complaint against Governor Palin, alleges Misuse of Official Position: “Gov. Palin attempted to and in fact did use her official position for personal gain by securing unwarranted benefits for her daughters…” All the allegations contained in the complaint are related to state reimbursed travel.
Report comment to moderator
“Create alternatives.”
Unlike liberals, who dream of having a single state news agency, kind of like Pravda, to disseminate its propaganda.
I thought liberals liked alternatives?
As for Fox News, I can’t comment because I don’t have a TV and wouldn’t watch that channel if I did. Sorry to disappoint you.
Report comment to moderator
“I am finding it a bit bewildering that a member of the media is complainging abuot [sic] the media”
What’s the matter Musing? The truth doesn’t fit your paradigm? I read a study not too long ago about scientists who couldn’t assimilate new data, they literally read right over it because it didn’t fit into their view of the truth. I think something like that must be going on here…
Report comment to moderator
When the MSM obtains and publishes the list of donors to prez libraries (and the amounts given/solicited) then and only then will I reject all the rightwing rant about the “liberal press” or liberal drive-by media.
Report comment to moderator
We hope WORLD won’t be long dependent on AP for great photos and broad-based reporting (Mickey’s working on that).
Is this foreshadowing? Does this mean WORLD will be hiring? How about international correspondents? TomBob is in Australia at the moment, and would be very interested in discussing excuses to stay longer.
Report comment to moderator
“Unlike liberals, who dream of having a single state news agency, kind of like Pravda, to disseminate its propaganda.”
Can you provide a specific example?
Report comment to moderator
#11 No he can’t – he has a giant demonic straw liberal bogeyman engaging most of his cranial capacity. Paranoia strikes deep! (Boo!)
Report comment to moderator
MSM coverage on most matters is 10 miles wide and 1/2 inch deep. Being able to get on air experts aint cheap. And when you hafta engage in what lawyers call the battle of the white lab coats to present both sides, it can’t be even more costly.
Report comment to moderator
Can you provide a specific example?
The Fairness Doctrine, a/k/a the Hush Rush law.
Report comment to moderator
Does the fairness doctrine advocate for “single state news agency, kind of like Pravda, to disseminate its propaganda”?
Report comment to moderator
Here is a story that isn’t getting much press. The money used to buy Obama’s house came (indirectly) from Saddam Hussein.
Report comment to moderator
Well, let’s see. I’m the one suggesting a need for a more diversified, less centralized media presence in this country, and here we have Spinoza mocking the idea of alternatives to the establishment.
I believe that liberals would like to silence dissenting voices (um, you do know what Pravda was, don’t you?) but know they can’t get away with it in this country. Therefore it’s not likely to occur all at once. But this Fairness Doctrine talk is precisely what should bother anyone who values a free press and free speech. What’s that the liberals say? “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance?” Or what about the Jefferson misquote–”Dissent is the truest form of patriotism.” Apparently that only holds when Republicans are in office, right?
Report comment to moderator
Actually, there was a long article in one of the national papers about how AP is moving away from its “just the facts’ approach and trying to be more controversial.
Report comment to moderator
Trying to be “more controversial”? Is that code for “partisan”?
Report comment to moderator
Hooray for Mickey!
I don’t trust AP, but they do get nice pictures.
Report comment to moderator
“The money used to buy Obama’s house came (indirectly) from Saddam Hussein.”
Well, the man running John McCain’s White House transition team is Saddam Hussein’s former lobbyist!
Report comment to moderator
Spot on Mindy and you go Mickey!
Report comment to moderator
If you guys are sincere about wanting access for more voices, you should be supporting efforts to maintain Net Neutrality (something John McCain opposes)
What is Net Neutrality?
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress’s permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.
…. read more at the link….
Report comment to moderator
If AP and other news orgs are falling apart, that means there’s room for new ones to spring up. I remember a time when there was no Fox news. It was mostly just CNN. At that time, if a christian viewpoint was discussed at all, it was mostly a joke. Enter Fox news. They make a complete joke of more liberal views. Now ANY one relying on cable news for news is in sad shape. Maybe we’ll see the same thing with AP and other news sources.
Report comment to moderator
Some Corrections:
Well, let’s see. I’m the one suggesting a need for a more diversified, less centralized media presence in this country, and here we have Spinoza mocking the idea of alternatives to the establishment.
No, I am mocking the idea that “World” would be an unbiased alternative to the establishment. It deserves some serious mocking!
I believe that liberals would like to silence dissenting voices (um, you do know what Pravda was, don’t you?) but know they can’t get away with it in this country. Therefore it’s not likely to occur all at once. But this Fairness Doctrine talk is precisely what should bother anyone who values a free press and free speech.
I am against the “Fairness Doctrine” – I guess, according to your blanket assertions, I’m not a liberal. Whatever. I do think we could do without all the idiotic ranting and raving of the press on the right, but my favorite antidote is simply to recommend they be ignored!
>What’s that the liberals say? “The price of freedom is eternal >vigilance?” Or what about the Jefferson misquote–”Dissent is the >truest form of patriotism.” Apparently that only holds when >Republicans are in office, right?
Now you’re just talking to yourself (or is it just the voices in your head?). That seems to be the case most of the time!
Report comment to moderator
As the one who pays that bill, I say “Hot dog!” Nice pictures, yes… Worth it? Ehhhhh.
I just want to point out that… I like to take pictures. /gratuitious personal commerical
Report comment to moderator
I find a cmparison of this thread and the “Barack Obama show” thread more than a bit ironic!
The Barack Obama Show is specifically possible because the fairness doctrine lapsed.
Further, much as WMB is privately developing their own communications approaches to present their own perspective, Obama is doing the same in his 30 minute presentation to present his pwerspective.
The incongruity of the arguments between the two threads is indeed truly amazing!
Report comment to moderator
good catch, musing!
Report comment to moderator
It is interesting to hear Mindy Belz and others conservatives complaining about AP bias against them. If you go on liberal blogsites, they’re complaining that AP is biased against them. Maybe AP is just trying to make big bucks off of everyone. If their “product” gets too crappy someone will come in and steal their business. That’s the way it goes in capitalism.
And as Musing pointed out, it is hilarious to see one biased news outfit (Worldmag) complaining about another biased news outfit.
In any event,
No more drama,
Vote Obama!
No more hate,
Vote “NO” on 8!
Report comment to moderator
Moosling and Antlers — You know better. WORLD’s motto, right at the top of this very page, is “Today’s News/Christian Views.” See? In contrast to AP, there is no pretense of…….
Never mind — not worth the effort.
Report comment to moderator
stubob post 300,
but I do believe that in general this would be assumed to be a separation of the news operation from the editorial operation.
But I am well aware of this motto.
The irony remains!
Report comment to moderator
Liberal labeling is tricky since it usually means the opposite. Net Neutrality sounds neutral, just like the Fairness Doctrine sounds fair. Affirmative Action claims to reverse racism but it IS reverse racism. The People for the American Way promote the opposite of the 1st Amendment. And Planned Parenthood is not about planning nor parenthood.
Net Neutrality says that communication providers cannot play favorites and give faster access to certain content providers over others. Sounds good, but what it really means is that government and not the market will have the power to regulate content.
The government will begin to police the net and track content to make sure it is “neutral”. What this really means is that content must meet government approval, i.e. it must be politically correct. The Internet will begin to sound like NPR.
This will have the affect of hindering innovation and higher speed internet lanes and kill competition. And ultimately it will stifle freedom of speech, namely any speech it doesn’t like.
We’ve seen this game before. In an effort to be neutral about religious speech the government censors it. In an effort to be neutral about political speech, the government censors it. (See McCain Feingold for an example).
The last thing you want to hear is, “Hi, I am from the government and I am here to help!”
Report comment to moderator
No, it doesn’t #31. World has never, ever claimed to be unbiased or neutral. It proudly proclaims its Christian worldview.
AP is supposed to be unbiased and present just the facts.
World is a small, niche market.
AP is world wide and supplies probably 90% plus of the smaller articles in every newspaper.
Why are you having such problems?
Report comment to moderator
“Net Neutrality” is very important. It’s a bi-partisan issue. I’m almost certain that John McCain supports it.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir John McCain opposes net neutrality. One of many reasons I will not vote for him. Xion appears to have it exactly backward.
Report comment to moderator
Well, durn RPN! I thought sure McCain supported it. He’s a dummy.
Worldmag readers should support “Net Neutrality” or they’ll find this website relegated to the back of the line on the net.
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 33,
absolutely, just like the Walstreet Journal proudly displays its worldview.
Traditionally this has meant, however, that news operations are attempting to be professionally neutral while the editorial operation is where the worldview gets expressed.
That you insist this is not the case for WMB is, I suggest, the point!
And as I note, the irony remains!
Report comment to moderator
I not only refuse to be fair, but I am also for sale to the highest bidder.
Whom do you want me to vote for? How many times? In which precincts? Get your bids in early.
I listen to a radio station here. I read a blog there. Show me the money.
Report comment to moderator
Has any of the media that has been hyping the $150k spent regarding Palin mentioned that the DNC has spent $168k on Biden?
No? I thought not. Media bias – QED
Report comment to moderator
“Worldmag readers should support “Net Neutrality” or they’ll find this website relegated to the back of the line on the net.”
Indeed, and slower than cold tar running uphill on a windy day.
Report comment to moderator
I just want to point out that Xion’s description of net neutrality in 32 is patently incorrect. Net neutrality has nothing whatsoever to do with the neutrality of the content being sent across the network. It doesn’t have anything to do with content at all.
This isn’t a matter of “liberal labeling”—it’s just a fact.
There are reasonable arguments against net neutrality, but Xion’s is certainly not one of them. In fact, many conservative/religious organizations support net neutrality, including the Christian Coalition. If I remember correctly, Phyllis Schlafly has also been an outspoken supporter of NN laws.
Report comment to moderator
Peck-
Thanks for that info and link.
Report comment to moderator
Traditionally this has meant, however, that news operations are attempting to be professionally neutral while the editorial operation is where the worldview gets expressedj
*******Musing, what don’t you get??? I thought you a more able thinker than this.
World does NOT nor has it ever suggested that its news operations are professionally neutral.
AP DOES profess this, or used to do so. AP SHOULD be trying to do this. It is supplying information to the mainstream media which is SUPPOSED to be neutral.
Can I explain it to you any clearer?
Report comment to moderator
KRM post 39,
references?
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 43,
It seems you do not understand.
Let me try it simply.
WMB is upset at the bias say in this case AP.
To rectify this bias, they set up their own biased news service?
A woderful model!
Consider that there were alternatives they could have purused, but instead they joined them!
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 43,
with the lovely next level of irony that once WMB is itself a biased newsource, it is hardly in a position to complain about biased news sources: it is one!
Report comment to moderator
Musing, WMB has identified its worldview. It’s honest about where it’s coming from.
The sources we’re upset with pretend NOT to have a bias. That’s just deceptive.
Report comment to moderator
momof5 post 47,
so it is honetly biased?
The irony still holds!
Report comment to moderator
No, Musing. I just think you’re not thinking clearly…on prescription drugs or something???
Report comment to moderator
TRS post 49,
since you and I seldom agree, it is perhaps not unusuall that you do not see the irony.
Be that as it may, that perhaps just adds to the amusement.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!