Posted on 09/25/2004 4:03:10 PM PDT by litany_of_lies
Noted. Thanks.
Even AP "analysis" should only be a deeper look at the FACTS than day-to-day reporting permits, and NOT an injection of the author's opinions.
So you're right. Her analysis should only be based on the FACTS, and we've established that she is not (because her family will do better financially with a Democrat in the White House) IN FACT objective.
Looks like we'll slowly but surely have to do AP's conflict of interest disclosure work for them.
(Wondering aloud)
What if each person reading this thread contacted their local paper that subscribes to AP and asked that articles with Ms. Loven's byline not be printed because of her demonstrated conflicts of interest in appearance and fact?
If papers stopped printing or using her articles, I suspect reassignment would be more likely and happen more quickly than "merely" complaining to AP.
The writer is clearly a liberal, but there is no conflict of interest. The charge is that the husband contributed to Dems. So what? Indeed, in my view, a reporter contributing to campaigns is not a conflict of interest either, although most don't do it, to avoid the issue (just try to keep one's preferences in the closet is the idea, when I think being upfront is more honest and valuable). Reporters are citizens too. What would be a conflict of interest is some connection to a campaign other than contributing money.
JENNIFER LOVEN? They hire porn actresses as reporters now?
AP - what a sordid little conflict of interest nest that is. Do you think there are any conservative or at least unbiased AP reporters?
When I was looking for stories by her, I saw NO pieces that I would have construed as repudiating the administration's critics.
If they want to pretend to be in a "profession" like CPAs, lawyers, doctors, etc., they (and, yes, their families) need to conduct themselves like professionals.
Her husband is not only a Dem contributor (which compromises the appearance of objectivity), but is a past and potential member of government when Democrats are in power. As noted, their family fortunes would improve in a Dem administration, as hubby had a job in the previous administration and appears to expect one (or a consulting contract) if Kerry wins. This compromises objectivity IN FACT. No one would expect a person in Ms. Loven's situation to be objective, and no self-respecting news organization would assign her to the prez beat based on her husband's situation.
Again, imagine the wife of a Halliburtion executive who spent time in the Bush 41 Administration getting to cover the prez beat for AP. They would stop it dead in its tracks, AND RIGHTLY SO. So why does Ms. Loven get a pass?
info@ap.org has burned out the phosphors on my screen, I have sent them so many emails. I sent one about Jennifer this morning real early. I've never gotten a response from them, but I have seen corrections that may have to do with people sending such emails. Who knows?
I agree. If her columns were halfway fair, her husband wouldn't matter. The real issue is that her articles are supposed to be straight news, not op-ed pieces, but her choice of words, and her selective editing, makes them editorials.
Let them dig in. It's ok by me.
Talk about a left wing conspiracy. Anyone doubt it?
I suppose your concept could work if there was full disclosure every time a conflicted person filed a report or news story.
Seems like there wouldn't be any time left for the news. Or maybe you'd put it in the TV's crawl.
So for Dan Rather, the crawl would say (trying to be funny):
"Disclosures: This reporter carries an animus towards the President's father that has never abated because he was put in his place in an interview 15 years ago, throws temper tantrums when his broadcasts are delayed by sports events that go past their scheduled time, has raised money for Democrat candidates, and is generally a pain in the a** to work with.")
I think the corrections do happen, after the complaint volume gets loud enough.
A couple of weeks ago, AP had a story out of Albany, GA about the reaction to the Bush-Guard-CBS story which made no mention of the forged documents. I called the Albany, GA bureau and left a message for the reporter (he apparently holds down the fort there), and also called the Atlanta bureau. Others certainly did the same in addition to e-mailing. PowerLine Blog came out hard with criticism. A sentence saying that "questions have been raised about the authenticity of the documents supporting the story" was added within a few hours of the story's initial release.
So results happen, but I suspect it takes a LOT of griping to make it happen.
I am shocked and outraged to learn that AP has assigned Jennifer Lopez to cover the presidential campaign.
With all due respect, a protuding derriere is hardly a qualification for this most important journalistic assignment. Moreover, as the ex-fiancee of Ben Affleck, a prominent Kerry partisan, Lopez' impartiality must be questioned.
In this age of Rathergate, it is altogether unacceptable that . . .
What? It's not Jennifer Lopez? It's AP reporter Jennifer Loven? Never mind.
15-yard penalty for failing to disclose the nature of the link (kidding).
I noticed her hit piece on Bush today (Bush is "twisting" Kerry's words) and thought it amazingly biased for an AP piece. Not that AP isn't routinely biased; they just usually do a more subtle job of liberal cheerleading.
From the "Working for Change" web site:
(note: the article is dated 8-24-04)
Kerry strategists agree: "The Bush campaign has got Kerry written all over it," said Roger Ballentine, a senior environmental strategist for the Kerry campaign. "From Day 1, the goal of the Bush campaign has not been to get voters to like their candidate and respect his record, but to get people to dislike John Kerry even though on this issue Kerry is widely thought to be the greenest candidate America has ever seen. They want people to go into the voter booth, hold their nose, and pick the lesser of two evils."
+++++
This is an even deeper conflict of interest than the ones I've pointed out. As far as I'm concerned, it's game, set, match. She's got to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.