Patterico's Pontifications

3/21/2011

AP Caught Revising a Story on Obama Playing Soccer as We Go to War Without Issuing a Correction

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:30 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Stop me if you heard this before (note the link has changed from before because I “bumped” it several times).

So this morning the Jammie Wearing Fool (JWF) takes a swipe Obama for playing soccer in Brazil as our nation goes to war.

And the article by the AP makes an attempt to, in JWF’s words, “prop up Obama” writing:

The competing stories of Obama’s itinerary – a war front in Africa, an economic commitment to South America – divided his time in incongruous ways. By morning, he spoke with his security team about the international assault against Moammar Gadhafi’s defenses; by night, he was to stand atop a mountain and admire Rio’s world famous statue of Jesus.

Meanwhile, U.S. warplanes pounded faraway Libya.

It was all summed up by one image: Obama, adeptly juggling a soccer ball, as his aides helped him juggle his agenda.

But a funny thing happened when I clicked on the link JMF provided.  The reference to soccer was gone.  Mind you, it was in many other versions of the story.  But it was not at the link JMF provided.  I asked him about that, and he told me “it was apparently rewritten.”  Now there is not so much of a mention of any soccer ball.  Indeed the author even changed.

So it seems that as hard as they tried, the image of our President playing soccer as our military goes to war, was too much for the AP to successfully spin, so they tried to nix that part of the story entirely.  Nice.

Now as you guys know, I have tangled with the AP changing its story without any indication to the new reader that any change had been made.  Indeed, that is why I believe JWF when he says that the story at the link had changed.   Their stated policy is that breaking news stories can change.  Well, good, but did the AP suddenly decide the President didn’t play soccer?  Because, um, there is a picture there of him doing that.  What seems to have changed was what the AP felt like highlighting as examples of incongruous behavior:

Still, his team was eager to portray him as fully engaged in Libyan decision-making, even as the photographs and television images showed him touring a Rio de Janeiro shantytown and gazing with his family at Christ the Redeemer, the massive Art Deco mountaintop statue that has come to symbolize Rio.

See, touring in the shantytown sounds and looking at a statue of Jesus sounds a lot better than playing soccer.

Look, let me say that as a matter of fact the President should have some down time.  So I don’t object to him following March Madness, filling out his own brackets.  But what I object to is him doing it for the cameras.  He has an image to project, for his own sake and for the sake of our interests.  Going into the very room where Roosevelt managed WWII and filling out basketball brackets doesn’t send that image.  (And don’t even get me started about telling the world he had been bullied as a child.)  And if you have to play soccer and prove that you can hang with da kidz, can you at least try to look Presidential as you do it?

And to the AP, don’t cover up unpleasant truths just because it harms your side, okay?

And for the sake of preservation, I will cut and paste the text of both versions of the story after the break.

————————–

New Version:

Obama’s dueling foreign policy: friendship, might

By JIM KUHNHENN

Associated Press

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — Nowhere have President Barack Obama’s foreign policy approaches been in starker relief than during his unfolding travels in South America. Right now the use of military power in Libya is overshadowing his lead-by-example public diplomacy in his own hemisphere.

As he heads for Chile on Monday after two days in Brazil, Obama has been a model in split-screen leadership. While he extended friendship to an increasingly influential Latin American neighbor, he also ducked into meetings and placed secure phone calls to approve missile attacks on Libya’s air defenses.

He’s not likely to escape the awkward, if not incongruous, contrasts during his stay in Santiago.

During a press conference with Chilean President Sebastian Pinera (pee-NAY’-rah) he will take questions for the first time since allied forces began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya with jets and warships. Then he will deliver a speech, meant to address the entire Latin American world, praising the democratic transitions in the Americas and holding them up as models for the world.

It certainly wasn’t planned that way.

“The world obviously is a complex place, with a lot of things going on at once, but it’s precisely that – a lot of things going on at once,” said White House national security aide Daniel Restrepo.

Obama, however, twice scrapped trips in 2010 to Indonesia and Australia, once to lobby for his health care bill, now law, and then because of the Gulf oil spill.

In this case, with conflict in North Africa competing for his time with friendship in Latin America, Obama aides say his determination to complete his trip illustrates his commitment to U.S. neighbors. Aides also pointed to elections in Egypt as evidence that not all is ablaze or in turmoil in the Middle East.

Still, his team was eager to portray him as fully engaged in Libyan decision-making, even as the photographs and television images showed him touring a Rio de Janeiro shantytown and gazing with his family at Christ the Redeemer, the massive Art Deco mountaintop statue that has come to symbolize Rio.

National security adviser Tom Donilon gave practically an hour-by-hour account of meetings, briefings and calls that Obama led or participated in, including a call to King Abdullah of Jordan on Sunday.

“The president has been personally and deeply involved in this every day,” Donilon told reporters in Rio. Back home, some members of Congress began pressing Obama to do a better job identifying the goal in Libya. “The president is the commander in chief, but the administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in Libya is,” said House Speaker John Boehner, and to “make clear how it will be accomplished.”

At the same time, Obama’s visit to Rio took on a lower profile Sunday. A speech originally set to be delivered outdoors before up to 20,000 people was moved into a historic opera house that seated about 1,800. His visit to the statue, initially set for Sunday morning, was moved to nighttime. Aides said the changes were made for logistical considerations and to avoid the fog that had been shrouding the hills around Rio during the earlier hours of the day.

Obama has also blended his Latin American visit with the events in the Middle East to advance a single theme. The successful transition of Latin American countries to democracy, he has argued, offers a template for a positive outcome in regions undergoing turmoil now.

“For the United States and Brazil, two nations who have struggled over many generations to perfect our own democracies, the United States and Brazil know that the future of the Arab world will be determined by its people,” Obama said in his speech Sunday.

Within that theme has been a call for universal human rights, a message Obama will deliver again on Monday in Chile.

In that, some Chileans see a paradox as they recall the U.S. support for the overthrow of President Salvador Allende in 1973. Protesters on Sunday in Santiago demanded that Obama apologize to the Chilean people for U.S. interventions before and during the 1973-1990 dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet (pee-noh-CHET’). And Obama could face calls for turning over CIA and State Department records from that period to the Chilean judiciary.

After Chile, Obama and his family will complete their Latin American tour in El Salvador.

—————————–

And the version on msnbc’s website:

Obama: Brazil an example to Arab world

President juggles Latin American trip with Libyan military action

By BEN FELLER

RIO DE JANEIRO — Immersing himself in Brazil’s poverty and pride, President Barack Obama on Sunday held up the South American nation as a model of democratic change in a time of uprisings and crackdowns across the Arab world and yet another war front for the United States.

From Rio’s glamorous beaches to a notorious slum to an elegant theater, Obama glimpsed the city’s cultural extremes and offered the kind of personal engagement that can pay political dividends for years. Less than one day after announcing U.S. military strikes against Libya’s government, Obama made time to kick a soccer ball around with kids in a shantytown.

The competing stories of Obama’s itinerary — a war front in Africa, an economic commitment to South America — divided his time in incongruous ways. By morning, he spoke with his security team about the international assault against Moammar Gadhafi’s defenses; by night, he stood atop Corcovado Mountain and drank in Rio’s storied statue of Christ the Redeemer and the city lights far below.

Meanwhile, U.S. warplanes pounded faraway Libya.

It was all summed up by one image: Obama, adeptly juggling a soccer ball, as his aides helped him juggle his agenda.

In a speech, Obama celebrated Brazil as a place that has shifted from dictatorship to democracy, moving millions into its middle class and embracing human rights. He underlined that point as unrest sweeps the Middle East and north Africa, leading to dramatic change in some cases and violent crisis in Libya.

“As two nations who have struggled over many generations to perfect our own democracies, the United States and Brazil know that the future of the Arab world will be determined by its people,” Obama told an invitation-only crowd inside an ornate hall here.

“No one can say for certain how this change will end, but I do know that change is not something that we should fear,” he said. “When young people insist that the currents of history are on the move, the burdens of the past are washed away.”

Overshadowed by Libya

His speech and his whole trip to this region have been overshadowed by the onset of war in Libya. Obama has tried to find a balance of showing command of the war strategy without altering his diplomatic mission or offending his hosts in Latin America

And on Sunday, he was determined to be with his family, get among the people and feel the culture.

Obama and his family visited the City of God shantytown that gained fame through a movie of the same name. The slum is undergoing a transformation as Rio works to improve the plight of its poorest people and clean up its reputation ahead of hosting the 2016 summer Olympics.

Obama, his wife Michelle and their daughters, Malia and Sasha, watched young children pound on drums and perform a dazzling acrobatic dance. And then all the Obamas took turns at a little soccer, led by the president.

Favela visit
Obama chose a community center in the heart of one of more than 1,000 slums, or “favelas,” that dot the urban hills surrounding the city. The tour was designed to illustrate Obama’s push for what officials call citizen security, an emerging concern in Latin American countries as they wrestle with narco-crime and poverty.

Dozens of young children pressed up against a chain-link fence trying to get a look at Obama; the president ultimately stepped outside and gave a big wave.

Obama’s route to the slum was itself a contrast of life. The president began and ended his day in a hotel that fronted the famed Copacabana beach, where tourists and locals in bathing suits soaked in the sun and watched for his motorcade.

“He is thinking of Rio as more than just the Christ and Copacabana,” said Noemia Marinho, a 40-year-old lingerie saleswoman who lives in the slum and had her hair done just for the president’s visit. “Maybe our government will look to us more as well.”

The president’s tour had an underlying goal of endearing him to a diverse and multicultural country where his personal story already makes him popular. Obama is trying to bolster ties to Brazil — and do the same in Chile and El Salvador over the next three days — as way to boost the economic, security and political interests of the United States.

Obama delivered his speech at the Theatro Municipal performance hall that sits on Cinelandia Plaza, a historic square that was the scene of a 1984 protest that set the stage for the eventual end of a 20-year military dictatorship.

Here, once again, Obama made a game effort to connect to the locals. That included making a solid effort at speaking some Portuguese, drawing some cheers and a few wry smiles from the audience.

Soccer reference
He thanked those in attendance for showing up despite the fact that a soccer match between two of Rio de Janeiro’s biggest rival teams, Vasco and Botafogo, would begin a few hours after his speech. The very mention of the match in soccer-obsessed Brazil provoked a strong reaction from the fans of the competing teams in the audience.

“For so long, you were called a country of the future, told to wait for a better day that was always just around the corner,” Obama said. “Meus amigos, that day has finally come.”

The speech was originally billed as an outdoor event on the plaza open to all, but U.S. officials decided at the last-minute to move inside as logistics, costs and other concerns mounted. That sharply reduced the ability of many people to see him. It also lowered Obama’s profile on a day when the attention back home was focused squarely on the war.

The president ended his stay in Rio with a nighttime walking tour of Corcovado Mountain to the Christ the Redeemer Statue that is the very symbol of the city and one of the continent’s most striking images. After their motorcade snaked up the steep road, Obama held his daughters’ hands as they walked around the base of the massive steel and stone statue, lit brightly against the night sky, with its open arms over the city.

At one point the family huddled around a map of the southeast panorama. Sasha pointed as she tried to pick out landmarks far below. The private visit lasted mere minutes.

Obama and his family were flying to Santiago, Chile, on Monday morning.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

115 Responses to “AP Caught Revising a Story on Obama Playing Soccer as We Go to War Without Issuing a Correction”

  1. as our cowardly president prances around Brazilian slums like a spliffed-up ponce there are lots and lots of our Japanese friends what don’t even have a shanty to call home and they are cold and they are hungry

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  2. Listen, I don’t think you understand how wonderful Dear Leader is: He is in the 99.9 percentile in his NCAA Men’s Tournament bracket picks. Who cares about Libya or the budget or Japan when you have that kind of expertise at the helm?

    JVW (615582)

  3. he should be president of the NCAA instead of present er president of the U.S.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. Their stated policy is that breaking news stories can change. Well, good, but did the AP suddenly decide the President didn’t play soccer?

    *Facepalm*

    The story wasn’t ABOUT Obama playing soccer. That was incidental to the story.

    You still don’t understand how journalism works.

    Kman (5576bf)

  5. Hey, Aaron, despite stalkerboi being once again, unclear on the concept, at least the President wasn’t reading to kids during a crisis, or playing golf during a crisis.

    Oh.

    Well, yes, that’s different. He isn’t GWB.

    We should just call it what it is: the Kneepads Media.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  6. I think an image of the President of the United States playing soccer with some kids in Brazil has enormous bridge-building value. I’m no apologist for Obama; but a) we’re not “going to war”, and b) the President is the face of our nation, our primary conduit to the rest of the world. The world happens to love soccer; if seeing our president playing it (especially adeptly) softens their hearts one iota re: US unilateralism or whatever, then it’s worth it. He was doing it for cameras, yes, but not for US cameras – cuz no one in this country cares about soccer. This was diplomacy, not electioneering.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  7. “I think an image of the President of the United States playing soccer with some kids in Brazil has enormous bridge-building value.”

    Leviticus – How about the anti-Obama demonstrations and riots in Brazil and the police firing on demonstrators? Would that have been some useful footage for the people back home to see?

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  8. Well, Leviticus, I see your point. But after Japan, and while Tomahawk missiles are flying…well, I’m not so sure it is a good idea. But you might be right.

    I guess I am overly sensitive to how the press handled this kind of thing when a person with an “R” after their name did things. It smacks of hypocrisy.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  9. There is nothing “adept” about either of those pictures. In both he is off balance and awkward. Putting a soccer ball in a picture of a man standing does not make him an athlete.

    As for the second picture, none of those kids look particulary engaged. About the only engagement they exhibit is that they are all looking towards the ball. But the two closest are completely flatfooted and the two in the rear who are not completely flatfooted do not look like they are engaged in “playing.” It looks like an incompetently posed, awkward “photo-op.”

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  10. Daley, ouch. But there we go again with how different people are portrayed by the media, huh?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  11. There was another correction they missed in the story:

    “…he was to stand atop a mountain and admire Rio’s world famous statue of Jesus.”

    Should have been:

    “…he was to stand atop a mountain and have Rio’s world famous statue of Jesus admire him.”

    Mike M (629332)

  12. “Leviticus – How about the anti-Obama demonstrations and riots in Brazil and the police firing on demonstrators? Would that have been some useful footage for the people back home to see?”

    – daleyrocks

    Sure, man – but it shouldn’t be US policy to fold in on itself just because the world doesn’t like us. We don’t have to be pussies to make friendly gestures.

    Leviticus (7c9bbd)

  13. Exactly he isn’t bush so he can get to do what he wants.

    /Kman

    DohBiden (984d23)

  14. you know who loves soccer is little japanese kids but they are too cold and hungry and the fields where they used to play so joyfully are muddy and grassless and filled with debris and corpses and despair

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  15. Greetings:

    I think that President Obama’s time would be better spent learning how to throw a baseball.

    11B40 (965294)

  16. Kman

    > The story wasn’t ABOUT Obama playing soccer.

    *facepalm*

    1) whether the story was about it or not, is beside the point. They scrubbed a detail from the story that made him look bad.

    2) the author seemed to think the image of him playing soccer was important, given that the original draft said it “summed up” the juggling act the president was performing.

    But hey, feel free to cite from an authoritative, neutral source that says its okay to scrub news stories, as long as its not about the central point of it.

    Lev

    > I think an image of the President of the United States playing soccer with some kids in Brazil has enormous bridge-building value.

    I fully agree with that. but there is a time and place for everything, and “in the first day of a war” is not the time for this.

    > He was doing it for cameras, yes, but not for US cameras – cuz no one in this country cares about soccer.

    Well, the news is reported all over the world, regardless, and whether we care about soccer or not is beside the point; he looks like he is loafing off as our boys and girls go to war.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  17. whether the story was about it or not, is beside the point. They scrubbed a detail from the story that made him look bad.

    YOU think it made him look bad. But not everyone has to agree with your assessment (and indeed, not everyone has).

    the author seemed to think the image of him playing soccer was important, given that the original draft said it “summed up” the juggling act the president was performing.

    The metaphor was important? LOL!

    feel free to cite from an authoritative, neutral source that says its okay to scrub news stories, as long as its not about the central point of it.

    The problem is that you never seem to be able to make a distinction between style and substance. Things not germane to the story (or redundant) might get removed as a matter of style. Phrasing might change. It happens all the time. But that’s not “scrubbing a news story” — it’s called editing.

    Kman (5576bf)

  18. Kman

    > YOU think it made him look bad. But not everyone has to agree with your assessment

    Agreed. So why not leave it in and let people decide what they think? then like leviticus they might choose to defend it.

    You are consistent in your belief that the people should not be told certain things, lest they draw conclusions you don’t want them to.

    > The problem is that you never seem to be able to make a distinction between style and substance.

    mentioning a fact is not a matter of style, but of substance. how to use that fact is matter of style.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  19. Here’s an AP version from Yahoo containing the text I had originally quoted yesterday.

    It was all summed up by one image: Obama, adeptly juggling a soccer ball, as his aides helped him juggle his agenda.

    JWF (95b9a4)

  20. Kman at 17- Editing is done “before” a story is published. Not after it is published and negative reaction is rolling in.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  21. The more time Obambi spends kicking a soccer ball (and the less time he spends trying to play at being President)…the better off we are.

    Dave Surls (bfc371)

  22. I disagree, Leviticus. Anytime bombs and cruise missiles are deployed, it’s war. It’s not a fun day in the friendly skies. Besides, aren’t there two other wars going on now that Obama appears to be ignoring.

    Having his picture taken, doing fun things and spending our money seems to be Mr. Present’s main goal.

    PatAZ (43542d)

  23. Agreed. So why not leave it in and let people decide what they think? then like leviticus they might choose to defend it.

    Again, you still seem to have a Citizen Kane era view of how news stories get written. You don’t seem to understand that many people contribute to a news story, and that the news story evolves over time (especially if the event takes place over time, like a multi-day trip to Brazil).

    Correspondents on the scene contribute to a story. Bureau chiefs might also contribute to the story, and edit it. It might get folded into another story, with a news editor making a final cut. That’s how journalism often works in the 21st century.

    It’s not like a blog where there is a static post by one person and perhaps an update or two by that same person. Why not? Because they attempt to write complete articles that will be picked up by news outlets. Updates get folded into the story, rather than tacked on at the top or bottom.

    As the story evolves, certain ornamental aspects might get lopped off — the shoe color of Obama, etc. The soccer metaphor (and that’s all it was — a metaphor) is one such ornamental aspect of the story — i.e., it wasn’t central to the story. (The lede typically being paragraph one).

    So despite this post’s headline, there’s nothing for the AP to “correct”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  24. As a soccer player – we would love to play against him. The opponents would basically be playing a man short whenever he is on the field.

    Joe (6120a4)

  25. There is nothing “adept” about either of those pictures. In both he is off balance and awkward.

    Putting a soccer ball in a picture of a man standing does not make him an athlete.

    As for the second picture, none of those kids look particulary engaged. About the only engagement they exhibit is that they are all looking towards the ball. But the two closest are completely flatfooted and the two in the rear who are not completely flatfooted do not look like they are engaged in “playing.” It looks like an incompetently posed, awkward “photo-op.”

    Blue: your comment is brutal (but true)

    Joe (6120a4)

  26. “Besides, aren’t there two other wars going on now that Obama appears to be ignoring.”

    Well, there isn’t much of a war in Iraq. Only 22 Americans were killed last year by hostile action. More cops are shot in killed in America than soldiers are killed in Iraq.

    Dave Surls (bfc371)

  27. “Correspondents on the scene contribute to a story. Bureau chiefs might also contribute to the story, and edit it. It might get folded into another story, with a news editor making a final cut.”

    Kman – And then once the editor hits the publish button, stealth after the fact editing becomes the name of the game, which was the point of the post you seem to have ignored.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  28. Kman

    > that the news story evolves over time

    We went over this last time. AP policy is not to revise stories after they are written unless it is a breaking news story occurring live. This doesn’t count. And it is only done to correct the story, not to suddenly decide not to tell it. And all changes are supposed to be noted.

    > Updates get folded into the story, rather than tacked on at the top or bottom.

    And the reason why they can’t even note that they changed the story…?

    > there’s nothing for the AP to “correct”.

    That’s true, because it didn’t suddenly become untrue. It just suddenly became a scandal.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  29. Perhaps the timing is off – I’m not even sure of that, in light of the lengths to which the administration has gone to ensure that this is viewed as a UN thing and not a US thing – but not the essence of the act, I don’t think. I think the act is productive.

    If the standard becomes “No president can engage in any sort of diplomatic frivolity while there are American troops in combat situations”, then that’s that – but that hasn’t been the standard in the past. We’ve had troops in combat situations somewhere in the world more or less constantly for the past 10 – 15 years, if not more, and there’s been plenty of frivolity (diplomatic or not) by presidents in the meantime. Blah blah blah Crawford blah blah reading “My Pet Goat” on 9-11 blah blah Obama not alone etc. You guys know the drill. This is manufactured outrage if its outrage at all.

    Leviticus (f0f166)

  30. And then once the editor hits the publish button, stealth after the fact editing becomes the name of the game, which was the point of the post you seem to have ignored.

    Yeah. Again, you’ve missed the point. It’s not like a blog where you hit the publish button. The revisions continue even after online publication — that was my point, particularly when the even is protracted over several days (like a trip).

    The AP is constantly updating their stories. This is standard practice. If you want to, find 4 or 5 AP stories before you go to bed tonight (they must be AP stories, not ones where AP “contributed). Then check them tomorrow. Chances are a couple of them will have changed.

    Kman (5576bf)

  31. In short, let’s all save our indignation for something worth while. Heaven knows Obama’s done plenty to draw (legitimate) criticism.

    Leviticus (f0f166)

  32. > there’s nothing for the AP to “correct”.

    That’s true, because it didn’t suddenly become untrue. It just suddenly became a scandal.

    A scandal…. in your mind.

    Kman (5576bf)

  33. Kman

    if they aren’t in cover up mode, explain to me why they didn’t follow their own policies.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  34. “AP policy is not to revise stories after they are written unless it is a breaking news story occurring live.”

    Kman – What part of the above do you not understand? Revised stories must be so noted. Journalism 101.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  35. Kman – As a supposed lawyer is it ethical of you to revise sections of a contract both parties have agreed to sign without telling the other side?

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  36. Yep. Even if supposedly Obama was “forced”into this decision by Hillary-once the decision was made it’s his job to quite bluntly-sell it to the American public.

    Right now the political basis of support for this operation looks like a thread bare crazy quilt and he is doing next to nothing to reinforce it.

    As the Commander in Chief he has a greater responsibility to his armed forces than that.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  37. “AP policy is not to revise stories after they are written unless it is a breaking news story occurring live.”

    Kman – What part of the above do you not understand?

    I understand it fine. I also understand that it’s Aaron saying that, not the AP.

    Kman (5576bf)

  38. Kman

    Its not just me saying it. its the AP’s. and if you are going to call me a liar, why don’t you read their site for yourself and tell me what it says–quote the language that authorizes them to change a story like this with no acknowledgement.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  39. quote the language that authorizes them to change a story like this with no acknowledgement.

    Okay…

    It is common for an AP staffer to include in his or her work passages from a previous AP story by another writer – generally background, or boilerplate. This is acceptable if the passages are short. Regardless, the reporter writing the story is responsible for the factual and contextual accuracy of the material.

    Also, the AP often has the right to use material from its members and subscribers; we sometimes take the work of newspapers, broadcasters and other outlets, rewrite it and transmit it without credit.

    Isn’t that what happened here? (You’ve already noted the different authors…..)

    Kman (5576bf)

  40. Actually I got the threads mixed up I was in agreement with this part of a comment on another thread-but it fits here just as well.

    Specifically, Americans want their presidents to be humble and very serious about taking America to war. President Obama seems to be failing on both counts.

    Comment by DRJ — 3/21/2011 @ 10:29 am

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  41. Now, AW, tell me where it says that “AP policy is not to revise stories after they are written unless it is a breaking news story occurring live.”

    Kman (5576bf)

  42. It is common for an AP staffer to include in his or her work passages from a previous AP story by another writer – generally background, or boilerplate. This is acceptable if the passages are short. Regardless, the reporter writing the story is responsible for the factual and contextual accuracy of the material.

    Also, the AP often has the right to use material from its members and subscribers; we sometimes take the work of newspapers, broadcasters and other outlets, rewrite it and transmit it without credit.

    That is not what happened here.

    We aren’t even talking about plagiarism. We’re talking about the AP stealth deleting a passage that makes Obama look bad.

    Kman is completely aware that his ‘evidence’ has nothing to do with his argument. He’s blowing smoke in an effort to destroy the thread because he is a jealous weirdo.

    It simply can’t be an accident that he uses evidence that he summarizes in a completely dishonest manner. There is no way he thought the ‘we can use our own material’ policy had anything to do with modifying a story without acknowledging it in a correction.

    He spends 8 hours a day not merely disagreeing with anything Aaron says, but going out of his way to make lies that are complex yet very easy to disprove, begging a reaction that shuts down the thread’s original topic.

    Leviticus shows how to intelligently disagree with Aaron. They can have a productive discussion that is enjoyable to read both sides of. Kman fears interesting dissent on this blog more than anything else, wanting to make this blog a cesspool of his dumb lies vs people bashing him as a dumb liar. He’s willing to sacrifice 8 hours a day for 9 years for this quest.

    It is remarkable to behold, but I urge Patterico finally ban him.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  43. Kman

    As usual, you quote something not on point. You quoted their policy on plagerism. which has nothing to do with replacing one story with a completely rewritten one at the same link, that just happens to omit something that many people consider to be bad behavior by the president.

    the only time they are authorized to overwrite the whole story is in an actual correction, on a live event. to quote them:

    > For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version.

    Word “overwrite” never appears at that link again.

    Why is it that about 80% of the time when you claim a source supports you, you are wrong? would you care to explain to us all?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  44. Actually, Dustin, we should try the “Stalkerboi Challenge”: count up the number of times that this, um, unusual person comments to Aaron compared to other people.

    Because Kman isn’t an obsessive stalker. Not at all.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  45. simon

    i would suggest a drinking game where we all take a shot whenever Kman lies, or misleads, but.. man there are not enough brain cells in the world…

    (also because i don’t drink alcohol except in communion cups.)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  46. W

    e’re talking about the AP stealth deleting a passage that makes Obama look bad.

    First of all, I (and others) disagree that the soccer reference makes Obama “look bad”.

    Secondly, they deleted a lot more than “a passage”. Compare the two stories above, Dustin. Whatever explanation you give for the revisions, it’s going to have to apply to ALL the revisions.

    Or… maybe you might have to admit that the “two versions” aren’t even the SAME STORY.

    Kman (5576bf)

  47. kman

    > Or… maybe you might have to admit that the “two versions” aren’t even the SAME STORY.

    maybe so, but they put it at the same link. So that when i went to JWF’s site and followed his link, that’s what came up.

    And their policies don’t allow them to do that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  48. the only time they are authorized to overwrite the whole story is in an actual correction, on a live event. to quote them:

    > For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version.

    That doesn’t say the ONLY TIME they overwrite a whole story is to do a correction.

    You have serious reading comprehension problems.

    Kman (5576bf)

  49. kman

    > That doesn’t say the ONLY TIME they overwrite a whole story is to do a correction.

    ah, they aren’t allowed to completely rewrite the story for corrective purposes. But if they just feel like deep-sixing embarrassing (but true) facts, they can just do that, with no notation whatsoever that they made the change.

    That is if they revise it to make it more accurate, they need to tell us. but if they revise it to protect their favorite party, no need.

    Good to know.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  50. maybe so, but they put it at the same link. So that when i went to JWF’s site and followed his link, that’s what came up.

    Right. Correspondent A wrote one version. Correspondent B took that version and updated it, and added new information. The AP isn’t going to offer its subscribers two versions of the same story — they’re going to offer the most up-to-date one. The news is a moving target. No mystery. Nothing nefarious.

    Kman (5576bf)

  51. The policy of Althouse or Patterico, where they won’t ban you unless you’re actually trying to hurt someone IRL, really ought to be the standard for every website. However, once in a while someone exploits that standard in order to make a website’s threads far less valuable. What is the point of the free speech standard, if not to facilitate valuable discussions? Once in a while, I think using discretion to ban a hardcore, months or years long thread ender, is justified.

    Anyway, Leviticus makes a very good argument that we need a President that shows the world we aren’t so alien after all. Obama enjoying soccer reminds the world that America elected someone who isn’t fitting their conventional wisdom about America. That’s great, though I think now isn’t the time.

    I also agree with Leviticus that this isn’t war. The US can’t be at war without Congress’s authorization, given the Constitution’s Article I. Congress has written a blank check to the president to use their “war powers” without specific consent if the US is in danger or has been attacked, and that obviously is not the case here.

    So he’s right… Obama cannot have sent us to war. Rather, Obama has abused his power. The only effective limitation on this is the House GOP, which is never going to challenge a president engaged in a righteous assault on a scumbag like Qaddafi. So Obama has cleverly engaged in PURE DESPOTISM. He also had found a great way to further agitate, which is his core political ideal.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  52. kman

    i mean even if that is the policy, isn’t that a bit animal farm? No animal shall kill any other animal is changed to No animal shall kill any other animal without reason and everyone pretends that nothing has changed.

    changing the story to omit something that is definitely controversial, that imho makes obama look bad, and not even telling a person that the change was made, is deliberate deception.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  53. Kman

    > Correspondent B took that version and updated it, and added new information.

    which is unauthorized. you’re only allowed to do that in breaking news events. show me where it says you can do that for any other reason besides a correction?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  54. “Specifically, Americans want their presidents to be humble and very serious about taking America to war. President Obama seems to be failing on both counts.”

    Well, you can’t expect liberal Democrats to get all that excited about putting us into wars and killing folks. Every major war we’ve ever fought they got us into (four in the last 100 years), and they killed millions of people doing it.

    Fighting wars and killing lots of folks is kind of just normal day to day activity for libs.

    Dave Surls (bfc371)

  55. changing the story to omit something that is definitely controversial, that imho makes obama look bad, and not even telling a person that the change was made, is deliberate deception.

    Well, maybe the Associated Press should consult you beforehand to find out what YOU think is controversial and what YOU think makes Obama look bad. Because, after all, YOU are the center of the journalism universe.

    I’m sorry you feel it is a “deliberate deception”, but I have news for you (no pun intended) — it’s no different than TV news. Take the 24 news channels. The story reported at 3:17 pm is slightly different than the exact same story reported an hour earlier. Different words, phrases, etc. But they don’t bother to announce “This story is different than what we reported an hour ago”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  56. Dustin

    Actually you are exactly right about the war powers act. i decided to look it up. here’s the link.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001541—-000-.html

    you can use the “next” link to browse forward in the link, but basically the president cannot enter into a war unless we are attacked, in some way. it can be an attack on our territories or our forces, but basically the president can’t just attack a country without congressional authorization.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  57. A.w. – Time to ignore Kman again instead of allowing him to derail another thread. Everyone knows he is not here in good faith.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  58. One big difference between Libya and Iraq is that we do not have a strong president right now. If things go badly, other countries could be escalated into war. Their leaders know that Obama will not target them. Many countries are hungry right now, too.

    Without a strong hand that restrains our enemies, this situation can progress into a much larger war, just as the world wars began. Imagine if Turkey attacked Israel, or Iran attack Saudi Arabia, or even a war with starving Vietnam or Yemen?

    The situation is ripe for something unforeseen, and it is clear Obama’s interest is purely political and therefore far too short-sighted. He was dragged into this because he saw the rest of the world act first and saw the headlines that he couldn’t act.

    How does this situation look to, say, an Iranian leader who wants to attack Israel eventually?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  59. [Correspondent B took that version and updated it, and added new information]…. which is unauthorized. you’re only allowed to do that in breaking news events.

    By who? Who says so? You?!?

    show me where it says you can do that for any other reason besides a correction?

    I just did (Link at #39) ! Are you intentionally being obtuse to waste my time or obfuscate the fact that you’re just plain wrong about what the AP policy is?

    Kman (5576bf)

  60. The AP’s Guidelines for corrections:

    CORRECTIONS/CORRECTIVES:
    Staffers must notify supervisory editors as soon as possible of errors or potential errors, whether in their work or that of a colleague. Every effort should be made to contact the staffer and his or her supervisor before a correction is moved.

    When we’re wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction in the current cycle, we point out the error and its fix in the editor’s note. A correction must always be labeled a correction in the editor’s note. We do not use euphemisms such as “recasts,” “fixes,” “clarifies” or “changes” when correcting a factual error.

    A corrective corrects a mistake from a previous cycle. The AP asks papers or broadcasters that used the erroneous information to use the corrective, too.

    For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.

    I don’t recall the bolded section when I read the AP’s Guidelines a couple of years ago. I wonder if that’s an overwrite, too?

    In any event, others are complaining about the AP’s overwrite-instead-of-correct policy. In addition, as early as 2004, an organization called CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy for Middle East Reporting in America) claimed the AP’s corrections policies were especially flawed regarding foreign feeds.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  61. Kman

    > it’s no different than TV news.

    which is relevant… how? They aren’t telling you that they are rerunning that prior report.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  62. #

    Dustin

    Actually you are exactly righ

    First time for everything.

    I can’t help but think back to how DRJ will lament over the state of our education system. My government teacher (many years ago) glossed over this act, giving the same mumbled claim that the president can attack anyone as long as it’s short term. I guess the notion he would do so without the USA being in danger was not considered likely, but it’s still important to educate accurately, or the masses get the idea that the President is nearly a king.

    Our government was explicitly set up, from the beginning, such that one man alone cannot bring the USA to war. It’s a dangerous enough world that the President should be able to react quickly to danger to our people, but that anti-suicide pact measure has nothing to do with Libya, and it’s annoying that this simple issue is not well understood.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  63. “Obama enjoying soccer reminds the world that America elected someone who isn’t fitting their conventional wisdom about America.”

    Do I give a crap whether or not the P.M. of the United Kingdom is a baseball fan or not? Hell no.

    And, no rational being in a foreign country is going to give a hoot about Obama being able to kick a soccer ball.

    C’mon Dustin, you’re doing the lefties work for them.

    In fact, Obama does look a callous ass when he orders US forces to attack Libya as HE vacations in Rio and kicks soccer balls around. And, the AP KNOWS it looks that way, which is why they altered the story once one of the braindead lefty propagandists at AP finally figured it out.

    Dave Surls (bfc371)

  64. Kman

    > By who? Who says so? You?!?

    By them. I swear you are the only lawyer i have met who didn’t understand the concept of expressio unius.

    > I just did…!

    Now, you’re just lying. your citation did not say anything of the sort.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  65. dustin

    > First time for everything.

    Don’t sell yourself short. and yeah, my teachers said the same wrong thing. and so did the NY Times.

    But the law says otherwise.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  66. get those jap kids out of the muddy, muddy

    before bombing the libyan hordes

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  67. AW:

    They aren’t telling you that they are rerunning that prior report.

    No, they’re not. So why should the AP?

    With the Japan/nuke story… when that came to light, do you think the AP wrote one story? Then later that day wrote another complete new story? Or did it take some from the first story, and add/subtract things? Did they reinvent the wheel from scratch the next day, as events progressed? Or did they take parts from the prior story and move them around, keeping a paragraph here and there, rewriting another paragraph, etc.?

    News stories, like the events they reflect, evolve. It doesn’t mean that prior versions were “incorrect”. It just means that the Associated Press is trying to give its clients the most up-to-date and the most complete stories possible.

    Again, NOT like a blog post. Why is this so hard to understand?

    Kman (5576bf)

  68. dustin

    i will quibble with you on this. just because it is not lawful (and it isn’t) doesn’t mean it is not war. its sort of like what thad stevens said on the question of whether the south seceded, over objections that it couldn’t be secession because it was not legal. he said, something like this, “murder is illegal, too, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  69. Kman,

    The problem to me is that the earlier AP stories are often still out there, appearing at news sites and even in print at various newspapers. Unless the AP issues a correction, how will readers know which was the correct version?

    DRJ (fdd243)

  70. i have met who didn’t understand the concept of expressio unius.

    Except we know that stories are rewritten for reasons have nothing to do with corrections (again, I refer to my link). Which blows the presumption of expressio unius out of the water.

    Kman (5576bf)

  71. Again obama isn’t bush so back the frick off

    /Kman

    DohBiden (984d23)

  72. The problem to me is that the earlier AP stories are often still out there, appearing at news sites and even in print at various newspapers. Unless the AP issues a correction, how will readers know which was the correct version?

    Your question works on the assumption that “earlier” is synonymous with
    “incorrect”. Earlier versions aren’t necessarily incorrect — they’re just earlier.

    Look, for example, at the two “versions” in AW’s post. Neither is incorrect. They’re just posted at different times.

    Kman (5576bf)

  73. Kman

    I would consider a long response, but it is enough to quote you here:

    > It just means that the Associated Press is trying to give its clients the most up-to-date and the most complete stories possible.

    So according to you we are making the story up-to-date and more complete, but cutting things out. It’s a funny definition of “complete” that tells you less than the prior version.

    It seems to me you forgot in the middle you were trying to defend telling us less, and you accidentally said something principled, failing to recognize how your argument would have them violate those principles. Since you never admit when you were wrong, I will take that as the next best thing.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  74. i will quibble with you on this. just because it is not lawful (and it isn’t) doesn’t mean it is not war.

    Yeah, obviously. I’m being deliberately obnoxious.

    :)

    Do I give a crap whether or not the P.M. of the United Kingdom is a baseball fan or not? Hell no.

    Dave, there’s actually a lot of wisdom in this view. Why can’t the USA just be ourselves, and be unashamed, and tell the world to accept us for our virtues instead of trying so hard to placate them?

    Still, we just don’t do that. Bush didn’t either. We bend over backwards to try to convince the rest of the world that they should like us, instead of just being proud and confident (which is a more viable diplomatic strategy, but it isn’t happening). Given that we are trying to diplomatically show the world that our ambassador-prez is a citizen of the world, I think playing soccer with kids is likely to be a better example than most. It’s a lot better than bowing to our enemies.

    But I take your point.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  75. So according to you we are making the story up-to-date and more complete, but cutting things out. It’s a funny definition of “complete” that tells you less than the prior version.

    “Complete” does not mean repetitive, or filled with meaningless details (his shoe color, etc.)

    Kman (5576bf)

  76. We see concrete evidence of the AP covering for Obama on story details that would have been the focus if Bush was still on office. With Bush we saw video of his driving a golfball on the eve of military action for years.

    And Kman presents a frothing defense of what? Nothing coherent that I can find. Certainly not a rebuttal that this is evidence of the AP covering up.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. Kman is Krugman.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  78. Kmart knows the stated AP policy better than the AP. What a effin mendoucheus contrarian stalker.

    JD (318f81)

  79. Kman

    > “Complete” does not mean repetitive, or filled with meaningless details

    bwahahahahahhaha!!!

    And notice again, you want to suppressive information that might lead people to conclusions you consider wrong. i consider it very meaningful. hell, leviticus does, too.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  80. “Complete” does not mean repetitive

    another meaningless point, since we’re talking about deleting something AP no longer mentions.

    or filled with meaningless details (his shoe color, etc.)

    another meaningless point, since we’re talking about a legitimate political issue totally unlike Obama’s shoe color. Many people find Obama’s diplomatic efforts to be worth considering. Some find this to be a smart move, and some find it inappropriate. It is not possible that Kman thinks this is meaningless, given the contents of this thread alone.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  81. Certainly not a rebuttal that this is evidence of the AP covering up.

    If the AP was covering up, they wouldn’t have run the soccer story in the first place. Because it’s out there, and I’m pretty sure the AP is aware of the fact that once they publish something, it’s out there for good.

    Besides, if you wanted to, you could still criticize Obama for sightseeing while Libya burns. There’s still spin-able stuff there. I understand that soccer is better (because it’s kinda sorta like Bush and golf), but it’s not the AP’s job to select its facts in order to suit your spin.

    Kman (5576bf)

  82. Kman,

    I provided 2 links that discuss AP stories that were incorrect in earlier versions, and the AP failed to correct and/or refused to correct for a period of time. Here they are again: Example A and Example B. There are other examples, too, like the 2007 Iraq report of four destroyed Sunni mosques (with Iraqis burned alive) that was overwritten to say the mosques were slightly damaged, but not before the story spread — without correction — throughout the world.

    But for the purpose of this discussion, surely you can acknowledge there have been incorrect online AP stories. Doesn’t the AP’s preference for overwriting-instead-of-correcting make it more likely that readers will believe and rely on erroneous reports?

    DRJ (fdd243)

  83. Kman

    > If the AP was covering up, they wouldn’t have run the soccer story in the first place

    So in other words, you are sure they are not covering it up because… they are doing a really bad job of it!

    bwhahahahhahahaha.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  84. Kman, that’s still an incoherent defense by you. AP is not covering up because they are not doing a good job of it? Silly argument.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  85. AW:

    So in other words, you are sure they are not covering it up because… they are doing a really bad job of it!

    Well, that and the fact that there’s nothing inherently wrong to most people (you being the exception) about Obama playing soccer.

    DRJ:

    But for the purpose of this discussion, surely you can acknowledge there have been incorrect online AP stories.

    I haven’t had time to investigate your links in depth, but I’ll concede that AP has posted things online incorrectly, if only because nobody’s perfect.

    Doesn’t the AP’s preference for overwriting-instead-of-correcting make it more likely that readers will believe and rely on erroneous reports?

    I don’t know that AP has a “preference for overwriting instead of correcting”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  86. Nobody said anything about it being inherently wrong, kmart. Just you. #85 from kmart is breathtaking in it’s asshattery.

    JD (318f81)

  87. Exactly it is AP’s job to select facts that cater to lefty anti-bush propaganda.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  88. Nobody said anything about it being inherently wrong, kmart.

    OK. So the AP is covering up the fact that Obama played soccer with kids as we go to war by expunging that information from their story, even though there’s nothing wrong with Obama playing soccer as we go to war.

    And they should have issued a correction for that.

    Got it.

    Good blog post, AW. Convinced me!

    Kman (5576bf)

  89. even though there’s nothing wrong with Obama playing soccer as we go to war.

    It’s still the news. It’s still an issue that people want to know about, that some think shows a negative aspect of Obama’s priorities.

    Even if there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. You latch onto Aaron simply being honest and summarize what he said in a hysterically dishonest way, dismissing the entire issue in the fourth dishonest new direction.

    Any point anyone brings up, even if proven concretely, you dismiss as something you personally do not know. Every point you bring up is knocked down within seconds as untrue. This is why your blogging is a failure, and why Aaron’s blogging is a success.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  90. The idea that something can be wrong, and something being inherently wrong is simply too much for kmart to process.

    It is quite clear that DRJ whacked you, and rather than admit you were wrong, will do your LOOK BUNNIES routine. Again. And again.

    JD (318f81)

  91. Kman,

    I’m not asking you to take my word for it. The AP’s Guidelines say they will overwrite unless a correction is “warranted”:

    For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.

    The AP does not define when corrections are warranted but apparently corrections are very, very rare because I’ve only been able to find one online AP correction. Thus, in words and deeds, the AP has a policy preference for overwriting instead of corrections.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  92. Perhaps the timing is off – I’m not even sure of that

    it seems particularly well timed to deflect attention from the pictures of the people our killbots slaughtered in Afghanistan

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  93. DRJ:

    The AP’s Guidelines say they will overwrite unless a correction is “warranted”: For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.

    I’m not sure what your point is. What would you have the AP do when there is an error? They overwrite it. They note the error:

    When we make a correction in the current cycle, we point out the error and its fix in the editor’s note. A correction must always be labeled a correction in the editor’s note…

    Now, if you are saying that they don’t do this, then I agree with you: that’s a problem. But I don’t know that to be true.

    As for not finding them on the web, I suspect they get cleaned up by the news outlets, so you’ll probably find only recent ones. Not ones going back in time forever.

    Kman (5576bf)

  94. Kman

    > even though there’s nothing wrong

    see? once again, you reveal your bias. you don’t mind it being cut because in your narrative there is nothing wrong with it. but there is something wrong with it in many other people’s minds. just google around on the subject. alot of people are objecting to this.

    You think its okay because Kman doesn’t think its important. you accused me a while back of thinking the journalistic universe revolves around me. you were clearly projecting.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  95. “OK. So the AP is covering up the fact that Obama played soccer with kids as we go to war…”

    Well, you have to have priorities, I guess.

    And, it’s not like Obambi has any intelligence or military expertise, so in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter whether he’s in Washington staying on top of our newly initiated military operations, or just dicking around in Rio, doing photo ops and acting like the self-centered dolt that he is.

    It will all work out about the same, no matter what he does.

    Dave Surls (bfc371)

  96. Kman,

    But the AP doesn’t note errors. In my comment #82, I included a link for a Patterico post on an incorrect 2007 AP story about 4 burned Iraqi mosques. That story is still posted online, uncorrected, in 3 of the 8 media websites listed in this comment. The AP story was posted over four years ago, so would you like to re-evaluate your statement that “they get cleaned up by the news outlets, so you’ll probably find only recent ones. Not ones going back in time forever.”

    DRJ (fdd243)

  97. “In my comment #82, I included a link for a Patterico post on an incorrect 2007 AP story about 4 burned Iraqi mosques. That story is still posted online…”

    Well, of course, they’re not going to rush to change that. Anything that makes Bush look bad, like trouble in Iraq, stays, whether it’s true or not.

    Dave Surls (bfc371)

  98. so would you like to re-evaluate your statement that “they get cleaned up by the news outlets, so you’ll probably find only recent ones. Not ones going back in time forever.”

    No, I meant that the AP-identified corrections get cleaned up by news outlets. Your beef with the mosques is that the AP failed to make a correction.

    Kman (5576bf)

  99. It’s interesting that major lies about Bush stay in publication for years (and probably forever), but the AP effectively redacts relatively minor (but newsworthy) truths about Obama within minutes.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  100. Kman,

    Isn’t that your beef, too? Don’t you think errors should be corrected?

    DRJ (fdd243)

  101. That is the most interesting part, Dustin.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  102. This is aggressive bad faith from kmart today.

    JÐ (6e25b4)

  103. DRJ:

    I gotta run, DRJ. If your point is that AP doesn’t do actual corrections, I just don’t believe that to be true. It didn’t take me long to find several recent ones (see #93). They may have overwrote the stories, but they certainly make clear that there are corrections to earlier versions.

    As for the mosque story, I don’t know. Yes, perhaps the AP blew that one or didn’t adhere to its own policy. I simply don’t know. But I’m not convinced that AP is ALWAYS that way, as a rule.

    Kman (5576bf)

  104. Remind us who is arguing that the AP is ALWAYS that way. Or, did kmart just eviscerate yet another strawperson?

    JÐ (822109)

  105. Kman,

    Thank you for your link. It lists multiple entries for 2 corrections, both of which corrected a photo caption. The AP Guidelines have more demanding rules for correcting photos and their captions:

    For photos, we move a caption correction and retransmit the photo with a corrected caption, clearly labeled as a retransmission to correct an error.

    So while I agree the AP corrects photo captions, I can’t find much evidence it corrects its online stories.

    DRJ (fdd243)

  106. Kman, by the way, that handprint on your ass? That’s from DRJ’s spanking of you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  107. “…I gotta run…”

    You mean run away. You just cannot admit you were skooled, big time, by someone with more honor and civility that you will ever be able to muster.

    Plus, she isn’t a creepy stalker.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  108. Imagine the anti Christian outrage had Bush or any other repub/conservative gone to and been photographed at a gigantic statue of Jesus? At the very least the lefties would be demanding the repub to repay the treasury the part of the trip to view Jesus, that allegedly violated the “official religion” portion of the First Amendment. More likely, there would be dark talk (no that isn’t a reference to race) about Christianism, theocratic dog signals being used by the republican, demands for a special prosecutor, claims of violations of oath(s) of office, stories about how demeaning and damaging to the self esteem of non Christians, it is when the republican is photographed in front of Christian iconography.
    But with Obama, just more crickets from the lamestream media.
    BTW I don’t want to hear any more “My Pet Goat” lies and stories from any lefty/liberal here. They should be banned for such comments, after this dreadful performance by Mr. Obama.

    eaglewingz08 (74f660)

  109. yeah kman is Krugman one of Soros’s goons :roll:

    DohBiden (984d23)

  110. Kman sure does like the AP.

    But isn’t the point that the Commander in Chief playing tourista in Rio while three wars are going on. At least Bush stopped playing golf.

    O just doesn’t care. And he doesn’t have to because of dependable rubes such as kman and the AP.

    Ag80 (efea1d)

  111. I can understand how a person might step in to stand up for their president, or to defend themselves or their own wife, or stand up for a kid who’s being bullied, or to demand a reputation saving apology or retraction. But for the life of me I cannot understand someone (Kmart for instance) feeling as if they have to go gangbusters standing up for the AP. The freakin’ AP!!???

    This proves once and for all that Kman is only commenting here to threadjack and to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. No value added.

    elissa (992f44)

  112. adeptly?

    He toe poked it though the circle.

    A stoner in one of those stupid knit grunge hats who owns nothing but a skateboard and a hacky sack knows Obama is a dork at this.
    AP… not so much

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  113. According to Kman when Stalin ordered people to be airbrushed out of historical photos he was not rewriting history and engaging in propaganda, he was just “updating the story.”

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  114. The person that called Obarcky adept at this, much less anything, should be embarrassed.

    JD (318f81)

  115. The expression on the faces of the little kids is WTF?
    Who toe punches it?

    SteveG (cc5dc9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4241 secs.