Advocacy Press Indeed
There’s no point in having a post on another topic this morning when Michelle Malkin has the post of the day, if not the year, on The Associated Press’s incredibly weak response to her column about Bilal Hussein.
The AP’s response (mostly a non-response), which is carried in full at Malkin’s post, has everything that’s wrong with the 21st century journalistic mindset right there for all to see. As I noted in two different posts this week (here and here), besides deceiving and shortchanging readers and viewers, it’s a recipe for business suicide. I’ll add that this would be true even if the bad guys win.
The bottom line, as Michelle notes, is that:
With its non-response response to my column, the AP has made its priorities crystal clear. AP stands for Advocacy Press. Its reporting on military detentions and interrogations of enemy combatants and security detainees–and its coverage of the accompanying legislative and legal debates–cannot be trusted as fair and impartial as it lobbies aggressively for the military to subjugate its security concerns and intelligence-gathering mission in favor of what AP exec Tom Curley calls “justice.”
Because of the press’s clearly corrupt financial arrangements with Arab-state paymasters, yours truly reached a similar conclusion about any coverage coming out of the Middle East about a month ago.
And talk about “serendipitous” — If you don’t think the press has been working at cross-purposes against the Free World for a long time, this obituary, especially its fawning tone, should disabuse you of that naive notion.
