Deconstructing AP’s refusal to deconstruct Obama

As you know, I’m associated with Webloggin, a site that publishes the work of several different bloggers, myself included.  What you may not know is that the Webloggin editor himself works with NewsBusters.  Today, at NewsBusters, he posted a hell of an article analyzing the way in which AP obfuscates, rather than elucidates, when it comes to reporting about favored candidates (read:  Obama) and what they say, versus what AP wished they had said.  It’s a great piece and I urge you to read it.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    I’m not so much against the existence of propaganda networks such as the AP, so much as they don’t get treated as propaganda networks. Nor is surveillaince resources used on them. Nor is disinformation being fed to the AP from allied sources. All the things that one would naturally do to fight a propaganda apparatus, is not allowed because the propaganda apparatus is the “media”. As if those two things are different, with one deserving protections and the other not.

    See, it is not so much that they are an enemy and the enemy uses propaganda apparatuses to help them along that annoys me. It is the fact that people who should be on our side, are punishing us rather than our enemies. They won’t let us counter-act the AP, they won’t feed the AP disinformation, and they protect the AP from limitations and surveillance attempts.

    Even in an unfair and cruel world of the strong beating on the weak, this takes unfairness to a whole different level, Book, given that the AP can do all of the above things and more to us. Even in war, each side at least has a chance to fight back. It’s not a total massacre like Hitler and the Jews.