[litany_of_lies]

In light of the blatant conflicts of interest, Ms. Loven's assignment to the Presidential campaign by AP is inexcusable. She should be reassigned immediately.

By way of comparison:
- A CPA who audits a public company can't own stock in that company, and NEITHER can his spouse or immediate family. Certainly Ms. Loven can't be allowed to report on the presidential campaign when her husband is a "part-owner" of the Kerry campaign.
- Imagine if the wife of a Halliburton executive who contributed to the Bush campaign were covering the presidential race for the AP or any other national news organization. The howls would be unending.

++++++

Complain to:
info@ap.org

OR

Call 212-621-1500 and ask for Extension 6060 to leave a recorded message at AP Headquarters in New York (goes to National Desk during nonbusiness hours, but they can still transfer you).

I would suggest complaining ONLY about the CONFLICT OF INTEREST and NOT about the content--even if she were the most fair person in the world, she is not independent in appearance or in fact, and shouldn't be on the presidential beat.

If someone wants me to draft language for them, I'll do it in a later post to this thread.

As long as her byline is on a story about the Presidential campaign, you simply cannot and should no believe a word of it.

[BCrago66]

I read Powerline.com just like you, so I know what you're talking about. If you harrass AP based upon the activities of the husband of a reporter, you're just going to make AP dig in more, because it just isn't rational to hold one spouse responsible for the political activities of another.

Better to be more straitforward and just point out that her articles are biased on their face.

[AFPhys]

More "news" from this reporter... http://www.showmenews.com/2003/Jul/20030721News011.asp

Bush not able to dispel questions
Intelligence critics just won’t go away.

By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer
Published Monday, July 21, 2003

WASHINGTON The White House defense of President George W. Bush’s now-disavowed claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa has evolved over the last two weeks: blame others, stonewall, bury questions in irrelevant information and, above all, hope it will go away.

So far, none has worked.

In question: Sixteen words in Bush’s Jan. 28 State of the Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

At issue: The credibility of the president’s allegation that Saddam was rebuilding a nuclear weapons program. The assertion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium was a key component of that claim — and a key piece of Bush’s justification for war.

The flap started on July 6, when an envoy sent by the CIA to Africa last year to investigate the uranium claim contended that the Bush administration ignored — and possibly manipulated — his findings.

In a New York Times op-ed article, Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, said it was highly doubtful that any transaction took place.

The next day, the White House acknowledged that Bush should not have made the claim because of concerns about the intelligence behind it. The documents allegedly showing an Iraq-Niger uranium connection turned out to be forgeries. ...

END OF QUOTE---
Of course, as the 9/11 Commission UNANIMOUSLY reported (as did the Senate Intelligence Committee report and Lord Butler's report) the LIAR WAS JOE WILSON, and the yellowcake intel was not dependent on the forgeries at all.

Good ol' Jennifer based her FRAUDCAST report on FALSE information from a single source LIAR.

Sound familiar?

Puts this little hit piece in perspective, eh?

[HAL9000]

Some of the web sites carrying the article have labeled it as an "analysis" (i.e. an opinion), so the AP will not remove her.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Ever notice how these AP types never byline their stories on terrorism, and they don't even say terrorism most of the time.

[USA_Soccer]

Sent 2 emails

[Leroy S. Mort]

AP should certainly assign one of their conservative reporters to the President. Whom do you recommend?

[silverleaf]

It must really suck to be Jennifer Loven.

I mean, imagine waking up every day thinking you are a "journalist"- when you really aren't. Imagine thinking you are a crusader for truth and justice when you really aren't. Just imagine thinking you are going to oh-so-cleverly and intellectually nuance your analyis (ie, hit piece) and discredit the President and advance the election of John Kerry- when you really aren't.

I think in the aftermath of "Rathergate", FreeRepublic needs to start our very own forum "Clymer Award for Distorted Reporting (They Report, We Deride!!!!".

Jennifer Loven could be a CONTENDER.

[rodguy911]

Just imagine what the polls would look like now if we got even "close" to a fair shake from the MMSM'ers.

[Dont Mention the War]

Lara Jakes Jordan is the AP reporter who made sure that Rick Santorum was raked through the mud a year or so ago. Guess who she's married to? Jim Jordan, Kerry's former campaign director and current "employee" of the Bush-hate 527 known as the "Media Fun."

[Torie]

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.

[Porterville]

JENNIFER LOVEN? They hire porn actresses as reporters now?

[Chaguito]

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?

[OldFriend]

Yellowcake was going to be the next topic for CBS to cover. Looks like more coordination between the America haters.

Talk about a left wing conspiracy. Anyone doubt it?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

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.

[BushMeister]

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.

[Mamzelle]

Roger Ballentine donated $2K to the Kerry campaing. Keep in mind that he has both a DC address and a MD address.

[Former Military Chick]

take action *ping*

[Madstrider]

It's a good idea to contact AP about Loven's conflict of interest and her biased coverage. There are plenty of good reporters at AP who would KILL for the chance to get on the presidential campaign. So AP can't pretend that Loven is indispensible in that job.

You might also bring your campaign to the attention of Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post, who makes a career of sniffing out this kind of thing.

I agree with the poster who says that merely being married to a political activist ought not disqualify a reporter from covering politics. HOWEVER, when a reporter with such an association repeatedly files one-sided stories ... well, at that point, a news organization ought to think about the "Caesar's wife" principle. Even if you don't think the reporter has done anything wrong, you have to worry about the APPEARANCE of wrongdoing.

[Cyclone59]

Then the W camp needs to plant something out there as you have so briliantly outline as a trap. Then when the MSM latches on like a hungry tick, then expose the givens on the other side of the coin. Can't hurt or can it?