When CBS and Dan Rather lied to us there was a specific target to go after.

I'm sorry, I'm sure I'm very wrong, but when the AP lies to me, I feel like there isn't a good target to go after. It feels like charging at wind mills. There are good AP writers (Nedra Pickler), but usually the really bad stories don't have a name on them.

It's important to make it public when it happens, but unless it's a major story like this one, so much sneaks through the cracks. Trying to fact check 1% of the AP stories would require the entire blogosphere, if it were conducted at any reasonable level of checking, just based on the number of stories they put out.

Thank you Bill for pointing this one out, but which advertiser do I call? Is any local newspaper going to reject the AP wire? Is there a board of directors that would have any influence? Are 50 lawmakers going to sign a letter saying the AP needs to be investigated?

In short, is there ANYTHING, other than publicizing the really bad cases, that we can do?

Please don't think I am disagreeing with any of your conclussions. I really appreciate the work that you do, I'm just depressed by the AP.

I just dismissed the Iran story as stupidity when I saw it, but you raise a good point. I can offer an alternative explanation: Laziness.

I can't interview a reporter to be certain, but I expect the timeline goes something like this:

1. Iranian official says he doesn't want to see Democrats take over the presidency.

2. Democratic flack writes up a press release or calls an AP staffer: "Look what just happened in Iran!" Democratic flack e-mails some video.

3. AP reporter picks it up, says "by golly, he's right!" AP reporter calls various flacks for reaction. "We don't want the endorsement" says Bush flack. What's the flack supposed to say? The flack probably hasn't seen the video at this point. Democratic flack says "This tells us something about president."

4. With the headline and lead already in his mind, the reporter hits the Rolodex (or an "experts" sourcebook) to dial up a few Iranian analysts that agree with the storyline.

5. Reporter pads story with boilerplate about history of Iran's relations with the West.

If my timeline is correct, laziness might explain it. Of course, my timeline also assumes that the AP reporter took the Democratic flack at his word in the first place.

That in itself says a lot about the journalist's bias.

Thank you Bill for pointing this one out, but which advertiser do I call? Is any local newspaper going to reject the AP wire? Is there a board of directors that would have any influence? Are 50 lawmakers going to sign a letter saying the AP needs to be investigated?

In short, is there ANYTHING, other than publicizing the really bad cases, that we can do?

Not really. The AP is so big and unfocused that the most that we can do is counter misinformation with complete information.

CBS offered a rare opportunity to take a media biggie down because they pushed fake documents and presented a specific target.

Truth be told, I ignore most AP spin because it's so pointless and subjective. but in this case, they actually omitted a contradictory quote.

I have some angles that I'm brainstorming to try and actually hold the AP accountable, but in the meantime, the goal is to educate as many people as possible about the fact that they need to check bylines and rely on blogs to dig up contradictory treatments.

Most people don't full grasp how many wire stories they read in their daily paper.

In this case, the AP reporter consciously misled the public to fulfill a narrative. His analysis of the mullah's comments (but not intent) may even be subjectively correct, but he omitted critical information and then tried to clumsily pound the point home with reinforcing material.

And every paper in the West ran with it.

(UPDATE: As a regional daily's editorial writer e-mails and points out, not every paper ran with it. This is overstatement. All Western papers that did run with the item used the AP as a source, as far as I can tell.)

Pennywit -

I can offer an alternative explanation: Laziness.

I buy many different reasons for reporter bias, and incompetence and laziness are among them. But if you click on the link to Newsday's full reprint of the article submitted by the AP - that's not a "lazy" news story. it's actually fairly comprehensive 800 words, two pages, with at least 6 sources.

As a news guy yourself, you'll probably recognize how much work went into that one.

Bill, your power is great, your brain is awesome, and I will do anything in my power to help.

So we're supposed to believe anything the mullahocracy says? Aren't reporters supposed to be, um, critical in their thinking? Oh that's right, they'll only disbelieve what Bush says.

Bill -- I clicked and read it. It did take quite a bit of surfing the Rolodex. I would categorize the story as "intellectual laziness," meaning that it didn't occur to the reporter to question what he'd been told. It happens to a lot of newspeople -- even happened to me a couple times when I was a reporter.

Now, for holding AP accountable, here are a few ideas.

When they spot conservative-leaning bias, liberals tend to look up the reporter's contact info and look up the editor who supervises that reporter and send the teeming liberal hordes to flood the reporter with voicemail and e-mail.

I don't think that's going to be effective. It just annoys the reporters and editors and promotes a siege mentality.

Let's review the essential nature of the AP. It is a very large nonprofit monopoly that is financed by fees that it charges member newspapers and TV stations.

Stories also tend to be heavily edited by the local papers for space considerations. Because most of the news stories are written in inverted pyramid format, a story like the one linked here would probably be cut off right after the statements from Kerry and Bush's respective flacks. The adage is "trim from the bottom."

AP has no effective competitors. Scripps Howard and KRT cater to niche audiences. Reuters doesn't have nearly the reach. UPI is moribund. The Washington Post, LA Times, and other national-newspaper wires tend to run stories that are too long to be useful for your average local newspaper.

Chains also tend to have their own wires, whether that be the KRT wire, Gannett News Service, or Media General News Service.

AP also tends cull a lot of its material from member papers. It will take an article or feature, trim it, massage it, perhaps rewrite it, and send it back out over the wire.

But what is AP's weak point? The fact that it depends on media outlets for its distribution. So that's where you have to attack it.

I've never tried this, but here's something that might be effective:

1) Document the offending story, it's placement in the local newspaper, and the material that indicates its bias.

2) Put together a polite e-mail or fax to your local paper. Address it to the attention of the "City Editor," "Copy Desk Chief," or "Wire Editor."

3) In your letter, you should document the bias and follow it up with a request that such things be looked for on the copy desk. Say that you understand the stress of putting out a daily newspaper, but emphasize to them that you do not believe they are serving the community, and that Associated Press is breaching its duty to its member papers.

Your goal is to stimulate your local wire editors to be more vigilant when it comes to AP copy.

You could also ask that the managing editor convey your concerns to the AP or further up his company's food chain. Especially when you get to the larger papers, members of the company (or former executives) tend to hold positions of responsibility at the AP.

I don't know if this would be effective. Mostly, I'm thinking off the top of my head.

--|PW|--

The word "endorsement" came from the Bush campaign. The AP article reads -

"The Bush campaign said no thanks. 'It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon,' Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. 'Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the U.N. Security Council.'" AP > National > Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

Rollins -

"The word "endorsement" came from the Bush campaign. The AP article reads ...

Please tell me that you're not that naive - I don't think that you are if you think it through. But just in case, I'll fill in the blanks for you:

AP reporter: "Hello, Bush campaign? We're reporting tomorrow on an endorsement of Bush by the mullahs in Iran. Do you have any comment?"

Bush campaign: "No thanks. It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon."

You'll try to spin anything, won't you?

Pick your battles and choose your ammunition wisely, Rollins. Wisely.

Pennywit -

I would categorize the story as "intellectual laziness,"

I believe that "intellectual laziness" is mischaracterized as partisan bias by right-wing criticism of the MSM all the time. i also believe that the struggle for dramatic tension is a huge and underrepresented source of bias but in this case, in addition to specifically omitting a contradictory quote, there's this ...

As a counterweight to a quote from a Bush campaign official, they feature a summary of Kerry's plan and a quote from a Kerry campaign official, make a casual assertion that "Iran was happy" about US action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and uncritically quote two "Iranian political analyst[s]" that explicitly criticize Bush, one with hyperbolic language.

To label this effort lazy is inaccurate. I'm not keen on fighting with you, and I think that your steps for dealing with the AP have merit, but I simply cannot buy "laziness." I kind of find that read ... "lazy?"

Heh.

Part of the problem with blogging is that we're all opinionated people, and we don't like backing away from fights.

Ergo, I'll overcome my worse nature and leave the "laziness" issue aside. I also believe journalists are guilty of preconceiving their stories, being far too chummy with their sources, passing out anonymity like candy, spending far too much time reporting from press releases, and putting in too much time in the newsrooms, the halls of government, and the campaign buses for their own good.

I mean, I don't care if you're reporting on permutations of Regulation A76 and you spend all your time on the horn with lawyers and contractors. But if you're covering health care or presidential politics, get your ass off the bus and start talking to real people.

--|PW|--

Heh, all good aspects of bias that are sometimes lumped in with partisanship.

This article is probably one of the biggest spins possible. Reporters should be shot for stuff like this. This person should lose their job and be forced to work at National Enquirer for ther rest of their lives. It's proably retaliation for the endorsement from Yasser Arafat for Kerry. Lets get somebody fired.

I think the AP wanted something to counter the Arafat endorsement of Kerry, but I am not buying it.

What's with these pictures? It's not the done thing to show the sole of your foot in Islam. These guys are sticking it in the eye of the photogragher and anyone who looks upon the photo.

Can't you see how contrived the grouping looks. Compare with pictures of Arabs in their own settings. All feet on the ground.

Let me take the point 'Just Me' makes one step further. This is a rather cynical and transparent 'endorsement,' if it is, indeed, an endorsement at all; a media-promoted head fake that would only work if the 'axis of evil' speech, military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran's funding of the Iraqi insurgency had never happened.

As a data point for voters, it's an outlier, and a mighty incongruous one, at that.

Bill - Maybe that is how it went. But, come on, it is the media - they are all looking to make headlines. You could spend your whole life picking out news articles that don't exactly match the content, or could have less sensational headlines.

You could spend your whole life picking out news articles that don't exactly match the content, or could have less sensational headlines.

Correct. And I do. But I don't write about 95% of them.

In this case, however, the article omits a quote that directly invalidates/contradicts the "story," according to the AP.

I don't bother with stories that I just think are unfair - I DO bother with national/international stories that are lies - where I can prove it.

I guess this AP writer follows the rule, Don't ask questions you don't want to hear the answer to.

pennywit

I've been writing my local rag for some time about the AP bias. Unfortunately, I haven't keep the material I've sent - I should be compiling for periodic dumps. Besides encouraging them to ask AP to clean up their act, I also suggest that maybe my rag's staff could spend a little time examining and editing, as necessary, any AP propaganda (I do point out "opinion" in news pieces). No, I don't put it that way to them, just making my point here.

I've made no inroads yet, but I plan to soldier on.

Pennywit thinks it was laziness, and Bill thinks it wasn't--pointing out the missing quote which would have contradicted the reporter's spin.

Note what else is missing from the AP article--a quote which actually says the Iranian guy would prefer to have Bush as President.

Yet, the idea being put across by the "reporter" is that the Iranian said such a thing. If he said it, where is the quoted statement that he made?

Bill, there's no "effective" about the AP's lie. It was a lie, plain and simple. The Iranian official didn't endorse President Bush as the article falsely states. He didn't endorse anyone because he doesn't care either way, as the quote that was "conveniently" left out of the AP article undeniably shows.

It's so pathetic. The liberals were obviously just itching to twist something - anything - to the detriment of President Bush after all the less-than-desirable endorsements Kerry has gotten.

Grrr.... This makes me so mad. Now DNC mouthpiece Jon Stewart mentioned this story on the Daily Show.

I can't believe people would actually think that the Mullahs in Iran would endorse Bush.

Especially considering the Iranian regime allowed Michael Moores anti-Bush propaganda film, F911, to play in Iranian theatres:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12657_Fahrenheit_9-11_Debuts_in_Tehran

And not just the Iranian Mullahs, but also the Iranian sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah which gave F911 a thumbs up:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39012