AP Lies: How much can we Trust the Media?

I thought I'd kick off a discussion with this link someone on another board pointed out.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007712.php

Heres the text of the article, but with many links ommitted:

've long said that the Associated Press is the nation's worst source of media bias. But this one, frankly, blows me away. It was first noted, I think, by Freepers and followed up on by Swimming Through the Spin, linked to by InstaPundit.


The AP ran this story:

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them. Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath. Bush recently praised Clinton when the former president went to the White House for the unveiling of his official portrait. He lauded Clinton for his knowledge, compassion and "the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president."


A number of people who were at the rally and didn't hear any boos sent angry emails to the AP, which resulted in a rewrite of the story. If you follow the link to the original story, this is what you get. Nothing.


The AP put up a revised version which is exactly the same as the original, except that it omits the two sentences about the crowd booing and Bush "doing nothing to stop them." No explanation and, as of yet, no apology.


Meanwhile, someone came up with an audio of the President Bush's speech, which is linked to by Drudge. Listen to it here. The audio is stunning. When the President says that he's just received word that Clinton had been hospitalized, you can hear the crowd react with sympathy and dismay. When Bush goes on to say that President Clinton is in our thoughts and prayers, and we send him our best wishes for a speedy recovery, the crowd applauds and cheers enthusiastically. No booing. None.


Note that the AP didn't say "there were scattered boos" (there weren't) or even "one guy booed." The AP reported, falsely, that "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed." That isn't spin; it's a flat-out lie. And the AP writer added the malicious embellishment that Bush did nothing to stop the (nonexistent) booing.


Is this the most astonishing example of media bias I can remember? Offhand, yes. It is sheer, malicious fabrication and slander--of President Bush and of Republicans generally--in what purports to be a brief, factual account of Bush's speech.


What this shows, I guess, is that the establishment media are in a full panic mode over John Kerry's prospects. Any semblance of professionalism, or even basic honesty, in this instance, is gone.


The AP needs to do some serious soul-searching, and fire, at a minimum, the guy who wrote that story, if it wants to retain even a shred of credibility.


While I was typing this, video footage of the West Allis rally ws played on Fox News, but without any mention of the AP fabrication.


UPDATE: The AP's lie is spreading rapidly around the globe. Salon says: "Audience boos as Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery." WSTM television 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 in northern Virginia has the same "many booed" story. In Iowa, KWWL television 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, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, California, Tennessee, Indiana, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio

 

So, my question for discussion is, how much can we trust the media?

Thankfully, with the mass communication afforded by the internet, you dont need to trust the AP as much. Instead, with a bit of searching or talking, you can probably hook up with people who were at said event. I trust people but knowing some people twist things, try to get more input.

It's highly possible the first person to report the story heard "boos". As in...the guy heard the oohs and somehow guessed or assumed them to be boos. Maybe an honest mistake. Reporters are human, you know? Of course, the only other possibility is that they did a "take 2" and convinced the press, everyone in attendance et al that the take 2 is the only way it happened. Errr...right.

Either way, it's great nowadays that you can just ask people who were there what happened. And even more great that the people there took the time to email and get the AP's information right. 10 years ago, this mistake would not have been corrected. The reporter would go on believing what he/she honestly heard, even though mistakingly.

G-D

 

I'm optimistic that today we have competing sources of information so crap like this can't just be dished out by the media oligarchs.

I actually saw the clip when Bush made those remarks and the crowd clapped with the respect due to a former pres.
However, later on CNN, they edited out the audience response, yet let Kerry's response linger to show the audience reaction.

Who wrote this AP story? Ron Fournier?

 

Agreed. There are other outlets. Unfortunately, that does not stop those too gullible for independent thought from lapping up the first bit of crap that fits into personal agendas - by tuning in to news organizations willing to dish out predictably biased viewpoints. Bear in mind also that stories are submitted primarily by individuals. Personal slants on the news can be extremely difficult to completely eliminate from reporting. The inclination to insert a slant invariably increases when the topic becomes hotter. If the editor shares a like view, the slant remains unchallenged.

Avoid these bad actors that portend to know what is right for the listener ? that it is in your best interest to continue to consult their opinion ? almost as though you were shopping for a service. Settle on one upon which you can depend. Better still, trust no one, test the data and make sound decisions with eyes wide open.