Want to See More Examples of the Media Trying to Influence Rather than Report?

Or, the Lying News Media, Part "I can't keep up anymore."

Glad to oblige. They're both AP stories and they've both been covered by others, but I'm putting them in here for my own records. First up, Glenn Reynolds has the full scoop on the first of AP's fraudulent pieces:

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.

(My emphasis.) Problem being, it didn't happen. No boos. Nothing to stop. Then the AP edited the story, taking out those lines without issuing a retraction, but the damage was already done. Like Mark Twain said, a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. Go read all the links, and get pissed off.

Second, Free Will covers another AP story that slimes Arnold Schwarzenegger over his RNC speech - accusing him of lying about seeing Soviet tanks in Austria and Austria's socialist government, though it's patently obvious that the AP is the one doing the lying. Free Will has the text of the speech. Sloppy research or blatant propaganda? He reports, you decide.

Will the internet-challenged ever hear about this? Probably not enough, but a lot of people will, and they'll pass it on to their friends. I know I'm forwarding this around to the people in my address book.

Yesterday, Dodd Harris commenting on the Bush rally booing story, said:

I've been skeptical in the past of Hindrocket's (of Power Line) belief that the AP was the single worst offender in a crowded field of outrageously biased media sources (naming Reuters as my candidate), but I'm starting to become convinced.

Don't get me started on Roto-Reuters.

Last week at the Belmont Club, Wretchard quoted a piece from Editor and Publisher in which James O'Shea, managing editor of the Chicago Tribune said:

"There are too many places for people to get information. I don't think newspapers can be the gatekeepers anymore -- to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why."

(My emphasis.) Obviously the AP is among those who have decided their job is not to inform public opinion but to FORM it, and since they no longer have the power of gatekeepers to keep the public from hearing information they don't want them to hear, they'll engage in blatant propaganda - saying "this is wrong and here is why" while lying through their teeth. After all, they're the unbiased arbiters of truth, right? Just ask 'em. Who would need to fact-check them? Who would dare?

We would.

Not too long ago Dean Esmay wrote on the same subject. He said:

The Internet has detected the mainstream media as a form of censorship and simply routed around them.

Not completely. Not yet. But I'm damned sure going to do my part.