Patterico's Pontifications

4/7/2011

AP Caught Revising Another Story Without Issuing a Correction, This Time One That Makes Obama Look Callous to High Gas Prices (Update: the Streisand Effect)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 8:53 am

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

Update: Instalink! Thanks! And I noticed that although the AP seemed to hope to bury an embarrassing gaffe, this seems to be in fact throwing a massive spotlight on it. We call that the Streisand Effect.

Update (II): Treachalanche! And a Powers/Malkinalanche! Thanks!

——————————

Gas prices have been killing us for a while now.  Besides the simple fact that I still remember when $1 a gallon gas was considered high…

(I think I am going to cry)

…gas prices have really jumped in the last few months.  Now, to be fair, the recent rise in prices is much more related to unrest in places like Libya.  Of course putting an illegal moratorium on deep water drilling doesn’t help, nor does closing off ANWR. But even those who defend the President have to admit that this is a political problem for the President.

So the President was dealing with this issue when he said this callous thing:

Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle.

“If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

Yeah, its pretty schmucky, and condescending.  It seems too often Obama thinks that people need his wisdom in their day-to-day decision-making, as though he was the life-coach-in-chief.  Yes, Obama, we have long ago understood that one way to reduce how much we pay for gas is to reduce how much gas we use.  Thank you, Captain Obvious.

It’s like as if he is telling us that we are not living up to his expectations, so we better shape up.

Not to mention the even more obvious point that if you are having trouble affording gas, you might have trouble affording a new car, too.  I mean, there is that.

But truthfully, I wouldn’t find that interesting enough to justify a whole post until a funny thing happened: that whole passage in the original AP article disappeared.

Yeah, they did that again.  Instapundit caught them at it and is getting more attention than usual because of that.  As regular readers know, I have caught them doing this sort of thing before, here and here.  And it seems to go against the AP’s official policy on the subject:

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.

So when they make a correction, they are supposed to note it.  The only exception is this:

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

Now in one version I found that contained the forbidden text, at Business Week, they attempt to claim it is a “breaking news story” with those exact words:

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

But the problem was that it is really stretching the concept of “breaking news.”  Check the time stamp on that story: 6:27 p.m.  And the completely revised version Instapundit linked to was stamped 7:33 p.m.  Now look at Instapundit’s screen cap of the original:

That version was written at 3:26 p.m.  So the event this reporter was reporting on was over for at least four hours when suddenly it became breaking news that Obama no longer said that callous thing.

And in fact we know he said it, so really there was nothing to “correct.”  We have video:

Now one might argue that this isn’t a correction but a revision, and therefore this is okay, but then you are left trying to argue that if you eliminate a factual error in a story you should acknowledge the correction, but if you just decide to just remove accurate information, you shouldn’t have to note that change.  And that raises the question, “why the hell not?”

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: Aaron and I have hears from a newsman who wishes to remain anonymous who claims that the version without the gaffe was the earlier version. He includes what he claims is a later version that not only includes the gaffe but also includes Obama haughtily lecturing his questioner, who has ten children, that he needs a “hybrid van.”

I don’t know how the newsman’s version explains what Glenn Reynolds documented: the gaffe appearing and then being removed. What did they do? First use a later version and replace it with an earlier version??

We have written back for clarification and receive nothing in response.

114 Responses to “AP Caught Revising Another Story Without Issuing a Correction, This Time One That Makes Obama Look Callous to High Gas Prices (Update: the Streisand Effect)”

  1. Joking about peoples pain is not how rel leaders operate.

    Of course I still remember Nancy Pelosi when she was pushing Democrat talking points in the 2006 election saying, “Gas won’t be two dollars a gallon when I’m Speaker of the House!”
    In the summer of 208 every time I filled my tank at four dollars for regular my go to curse was, “Thanks Nancy!”

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  2. Also, the whole first paragraph is different! And the second paragraph! And the third paragraph!

    And in one story he’s talking to workers at a wind turbine plant in Pennsylvania. And in the other, he’s talking to a civil rights group in New York!

    AP changed EVERYTHING!

    Kman (5576bf)

  3. its deja vous day at patterico’s!

    have

    obama does have a plan to get us to $2 gasoline. he will require gas to be sold in quarts.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. Gas is still way too low

    Looking at about 4ish to 5ish in the following 12 months

    Woohooo!!!!!!

    EricPWJohnson (b6ab2f)

  5. “why the hell not” Because we must protect our saviour at all costs. Only the crazy conservatives are going to notice the changes anyway and we know they aren’t going to vote for him.

    That’s the AP talking.

    PatAZ (d09837)

  6. Welcome to Campaign 2012, the pup reporter failed to read his handbook before filing the story. He is now assigned to cover the two month long annual prairie dog count in North Dakota.

    Words have meaning, but only if they are reported. You know – the whole tree falling in a forest thing.

    in_awe (44fed5)

  7. I don’t think that Darlene Superville’s byline is an indication of quality reporting.

    carlitos (00428f)

  8. Obama’s advise, thinking about a trade-in, is very sound and we should all take it seriously. I just dislike the thought of having to wait until 2012.

    Pieter Bijleveld (678d8f)

  9. its pretty shmucky, and condescending

    That’s because the words were uttered by a condescending [schmuck.]

    [Ftfy. –Aaron]

    JP (c4988c)

  10. this is corruption, and that it passes with such little notice in the press and in academia and in politics tells you a lot about how degraded and defiled our once-proud little country’s institutions are become

    Thank you, Obama.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  11. JP

    there i fixed your misspelling.

    i bet you felt like a schmuck.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  12. there i fixed your misspelling.

    You may want to have a look at déjà vu :)

    carlitos (00428f)

  13. carl

    > You may want to have a look at déjà vu

    i figured it was in my comment, not the post, so eff it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  14. “And it seems to go against the AP’s official policy on the subject: …

    So when they make a correction, they are supposed to note it …. “

    Obviously, the report was correct the first time, so AP wouldn’t need to issue a correction, Aaron. You’re applying the wrong part of AP’s policy. You need to check their policy on censoring, not correcting reports.

    I suggest you look in the chapter titled, “Maintaining the Narrative”, first, and “Oops!” next.

    Dusty (626916)

  15. Paging Comrade Ogilvy!

    Patrick Carroll (61ed53)

  16. You’re applying the wrong part of AP’s policy. You need to check their policy on censoring, not correcting reports.

    Hahaha!

    But seriously, I think this is what the AP editors think. The first story wasn’t wrong, so they don’t need to document that they were correcting it. They are more willing to document things that are false than things that are true but harm democrat politics.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  17. Anyone notice where throws out the old “2% global reserves, 25% global production” canard? He says, “even if we doubled the amount of oil we produce, we’d still be short by a factor of 5.”

    So many things wrong with that, first thing being that it’s a lie:

    United States daily oil consumption: 20 million BOPD (avg)

    United States daily oil production: 7 million BOPD (avg)

    7 X 2 = 14

    Did Obama take any math?

    Paul (07a4c2)

  18. AW:

    I noticed that although the AP seemed to hope to bury an embarrassing gaffe, this seems to be in fact throwing a massive spotlight on it.

    This is how delusional the right can be.

    First of all, to the left, what Obama said isn’t an “embarrassing gaffe”. In fact, many would applaud it. Perhaps (some) on the right find it “embarrassing”, and that’s fine….

    …but you have to be really ensconsed in your own ideology — blindly so — to think that your political opponents think the same as you. Not to mention, a little bit arrogant.

    And that’s what AW does here. He apparently presumes that the “liberal” Associated Press saw this as a “gaffe”, and tried to hide it because the AP is in Obama’s pants pocket.

    It’s more of that silly I-know-what-they-did-and-why-they-did-it BS. Beck-ish red meat for the masses. Chomp away.

    Kman (5576bf)

  19. Before everyone gets on their high horse over this, check the quote against the video. He said all of those words, but the quote is still inaccurate. It takes a trailed off sentence in the middle of Obama’s remarks and combines it with the ending of a different sentence at the end of the remarks. Also, it is not at all certain from the context that Obama was “needling” the audience member. Let’s not make a stand on soft ground. AP was right to take out an incorrect quote, and arguably right to take out “needled”. We can argue that they should have replaced this with an alternative, correct version of the two passages that were combined for the original quote, but we might acknowledge that this would have been hard to do succinctly.

    Michael Zelenty (9dadac)

  20. Hmmmm.

    The vastly amusing bit though is this: the 8 miles per gallon figure is from the Presidential limo. E.g. Obama’s car is the one getting 8 miles to the gallon.

    memomachine (a61bf6)

  21. LOL, Kman.

    Pathetic. The idea that Obama looks good for telling a man who can’t afford to put gas in his car that he should buy an expensive green car is completely ridiculous.

    It makes him look totally out of touch with families that are worried about gas prices, and families with children who can’t go to a Volt or a Leaf.

    It’s extremely embarrassing, and it was so predictable that AP would delete Obama’s comment that Instapundit had a screenshot saved. When’s the last time Instapundit used a screenshot? It’s very rare.

    You have been particularly snarkish and paranoid lately, Kman. It’s mainstream and reasonable to note that AP is biased towards liberals, and your hysterical freaking about the proof AW has is kooky. Your compass is upside down again.

    What’s really hilarious is that you then accuse the right of ‘thinking this way’. What are you talking about? AW deletes embarrassing parts of his posts, the way the AP did? I’ve never seen that.

    so now you’re on both sides of this issue. Aaron thinks like a censor, and that’s wrong, even though you’ve got no evidence of it, and AP doesn’t think like a censor, and it isn’t wrong that they protected Obama from an embarrassing gaffe, even with obvious evidence.

    As usual, you are so lazy, you fail to build an argument that doesn’t crumble within 20 words.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  22. And that’s what AW does here. He apparently presumes that the “liberal” Associated Press saw this as a “gaffe”, and tried to hide it because the AP is in Obama’s pants pocket.

    So why did they hide it?

    TomB (03bb50)

  23. Also, we’ll see how embarrassing Obama’s gaffe is. Kman says the left is proud of it… let’s see how many advertisements feature this comment, bashing a US Citizen for his struggle to afford fuel.

    I bet many adverts do feature this clip, and I bet zero of them are from Obama supporters.

    I’m just amused that Kman is shrieking about how paranoid Aaron is… before Kman goes off on this tangent of how Aaron secretly thinks this way, and is projecting that to AP. Where did that come from? Kman’s been stalking Aaron for 9 years, but he’s never listed an example like this.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  24. michael

    if its a correction, then it should have been noted.

    and i don’t see anything incorrect about it.

    Kman

    so let’s see here. the ap publishes the comment. conservative bloggers jump all over it calling him callous, out of touch, etc. then it disappears. coincidence?

    funny how these coincidences always favor one side, too.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  25. dustin

    oh, no he really just is in my head and knows exactly how i think.

    but had no idea i was dyslexic.

    hmm… seems contradictory…

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  26. …Obama said laughingly.

    …Obama giggled.

    …tittered Obama.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  27. So why did they hide it?

    Comment by TomB

    The AP didn’t want to give Obama an undue advantage with all those voters who can afford a $50,000 compact hybrid, but are struggling to pay for gasoline. You see, the AP is biased in favor of the GOP, and if you don’t see that, you’re sane.

    This is the only explanation for why the AP would delete the most interesting and newsworthy aspect of their coverage. If you think like an idiot, or are pathologically dishonest.

    The truth is probably that Obama’s staff called the AP and bullied them. Some AP staff thought this was interesting, and the White House freaked out. They are in constant campaign mode, and that’s why they are constantly aware of Beck or the AP, and reacting very quickly, often far too quickly (Sherrod firing).

    And there’s a large number of left wingers on the internet who understand this, but have a ‘by any means necessary’ morality, and so when this problem is addressed, they launch into absolutely insane attacks, such as Kman’s claim that it’s Aaron who is the real censor who is actually projecting that to the innocent AP that just got caught red handed doing it.

    Kman’s pretty angry, which is a good indication of how much this damages Obama. this outburst alone is going to cost Obama in the polls. It captures his out of touch elitism in a way that relates to the experiences of the voters.

    Punch back twice as hard, Kman! Tell us how paranoid we are to rely on video of Obama’s POV.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  28. the ap publishes the comment. conservative bloggers jump all over it calling him callous, out of touch, etc. then it disappears. coincidence?

    And this is the arrogance I referred to above. Thinking that the AP reacts to conservative bloggers? Really?

    funny how these coincidences always favor one side, too.

    They don’t favor “one side”. It’s only because you conservatives spin one way.

    Here’s how *I* could have written the same post:

    THE CONSERVATIVE AP HIDES A QUOTE THAT MAKES OBAMA LOOK GOOD

    Stranahan touched upon this phenomenon just this morning — the inability of some partisans to look at things outside of their own spin (that asn’t his main thrust, but he touched upon it). That’s just what you are doing right now: YOU see it as an “embarrassing gaffe” by Obama, so you assume that AP and everybody else does. Or you assume that the AP (for some reasons) kowtows to Glenn Reynolds and Patterico’s Pontifications.

    It’s pretty silly when you think about it… IF you think about it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  29. The truth is probably that Obama’s staff called the AP and bullied them.

    Proving my point (#30) further, Dustin.

    Kman (5576bf)

  30. Mr. President, the People cannot afford gasoline?

    “Then let them buy electric cars.”

    Phelps (e92ec4)

  31. Proving my point (#30) further, Dustin.

    What’s your point? I posted a link to a truthful account of how the press have interacted with the administration.

    Your point is that this is ‘arrogant’, apparently.

    THE CONSERVATIVE AP HIDES A QUOTE THAT MAKES OBAMA LOOK GOOD

    You say you could have written that, but this is a lie. you can’t really think you have evidence for this. I do have evidence for my claims.

    We see a lot of conservatives and moderates were bashing Obama for this comment, both before and after the AP deleted it. I read a lot of left leaning blogs, and zero of them mentioned this comment before the AP deleted it. None of them are claiming it helps Obama.

    It’s a simple fact that this comment harms Obama, and will be used by his opponents. It’s a simple fact that AP is biased to the left, proven by a very large amount of material. it’s a simple fact that white house press report being bullied by Obama’s staff, regarding their coverage.

    You just dismiss all that, and pretend we’re crazy. That’s the best argument you’ve got? LOL. Do you really think we care that you, with your reputation, make yet another aggressively dishonest attack? Of course not! What we care about is the video of Obama slamming working families because they didn’t buy Chevy Volts.

    We have the proof we need. All you’ve got is lashing out in a new bizarre fit of projection.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  32. Kman

    > Thinking that the AP reacts to conservative bloggers? Really?

    Absolutely.

    > QUOTE THAT MAKES OBAMA LOOK GOOD

    Lol, except it doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination look good. telling a citizen that he is too stupid to run his own life. Indeed the entire video makes him look even worse where the man reveals he has a van, and obama says something about him not being likely to have enough kids to justify that and then the guy says he has ten. And apparently a comatose wife (that last part is a joke).

    On what planet does that look good?

    > the inability of some partisans to look at things outside of their own spin

    Bwahahahahahahahahaha, take your own advice.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  33. THE CONSERVATIVE AP HIDES A QUOTE THAT MAKES OBAMA LOOK GOOD

    Sorry, I just had to quote this again.

    I respectfully suggest Aaron use that for this post’s title (hat tipping Kman), because it’s very easy to interpret as clever sarcasm. It’s like something from iowahawk or Treacher.

    If you post this on Daily Kos, you’ll get banned. That’s how hard Kman has to reach.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  34. Kman

    seriously, you don’t think that guy pays any attention to fuel efficiency? you don’t think with 10 kids he isn’t watching every penny?

    Its condescension, pure and simple. and it does not ever look good.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  35. Oh, I see Treacher linked this post, so you can’t change the title. Maybe add it as an alternative title.

    I’m surprised Treacher isn’t making some version of this joke, but I guess it’s too obvious that the AP is in Obama’s pocket. That’s often why I’m not that funny… I mock the obvious.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  36. “The vastly amusing bit though is this: the 8 miles per gallon figure is from the Presidential limo. E.g. Obama’s car is the one getting 8 miles to the gallon.”

    The presidential limo doesn’t even get close to 8 mpg. Not with all the armor its carrying.

    Of course, Obambi could care less about the expense of operating HIS car, seeing as how he doesn’t have to pay for gas.

    Dave Surls (f1caa8)

  37. Kman, again I ask, So why did they hide it?

    TomB (03bb50)

  38. > the inability of some partisans to look at things outside of their own spin

    Bwahahahahahahahahaha, take your own advice.

    I’ve already acknowledged that my ideology influences how I interpret the video (i.e., whether Obama came off looking good or bad).

    That’s the difference between you and me — you (and Dustin) can’t acknowledge that about yourselves. It’s as if you can’t think outside the box bubble.

    Kman (5576bf)

  39. Pathetic. The idea that Obama looks good for telling a man who can’t afford to put gas in his car that he should buy an expensive green car is completely ridiculous.

    Here is the thing.

    If something gets more expensive, you use less of it.

    Now of course, if government policy increased the costs of refining gasoline, then there may be a legitimate complaint.

    Let us look at another example, water.

    Living in southern California, I keep hearing about how limited our supply of water is.

    And yet an anti-meat protest inadvertently revealed that it takes 2400 gallons of water to process one pound of meat.

    A recent print ad from Ralphs supermarket offers a price of $3.99/lb
    for a New York steak. Giving a very generous assumption that 95% of
    this price reflects the cost of the 2400 gallons used to process a
    pound of steak, this means that the upper limit for the water costs
    per pound of meat is $3.79.

    The minimum wage in California is $64 for 8 hours. A person working a
    full-time, minimum wage job can use at least 4,000 gallons of water a
    day without spending more than a tenth of income on tap water. It is
    plainly clear that water is astronomically cheap. Which does beg the
    question of why this is so. Is water so abundant, even in southern
    California, that the price of 1000 gallons of water is less than a
    dime more than the price of a tall cup of coffee at Starbucks? Or does
    the government subsidize water?

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  40. Kman sez:

    First of all, to the left, what Obama said isn’t an “embarrassing gaffe”. In fact, many would applaud it. Perhaps (some) on the right find it “embarrassing”, and that’s fine….

    You don’t consider it an embarrassing gaffe for the leader of your party to look a man square in the face, after he’s told you he’s having trouble buying gasoline for his car, and suggest that he trade it in — which would cost him MORE MONEY over the short term, which he probably doesn’t have, because he’s, y’know, ALREADY HAVING TROUBLE BUYING GAS?!

    You don’t consider that embarrassing?

    Wow. :::claps:::

    Demosthenes (ca616f)

  41. Kman, again I ask, So why did they hide it?

    I don’t accept the premise of your question. Prove to me they “hid” it — i.e., that their intent was to “hide” it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  42. You don’t consider it an embarrassing gaffe for the leader of your party to look a man square in the face, after he’s told you he’s having trouble buying gasoline for his car, and suggest that he trade it in — which would cost him MORE MONEY over the short term, which he probably doesn’t have, because he’s, y’know, ALREADY HAVING TROUBLE BUYING GAS?!

    Wow. If you have to spin the video, and throw in a few assumptions, BEFORE asking the question of whether or not it’s embarrassing, then I think you can guess my answer.

    Kman (5576bf)

  43. I don’t accept the premise of your question. Prove to me they “hid” it — i.e., that their intent was to “hide” it.

    It was it an earlier version of the story. It then disappeared (without correction) from subsequent versions.

    Why would they do that?

    TomB (03bb50)

  44. I’ve already acknowledged that my ideology influences how I interpret the video

    No, you’re lying. You’re accused of having a bias against Aaron, not a bias towards Obama. This is about your accusations that Aaron is projecting his need to censor onto AP. The burden of proof is on you.

    Aaron has presented excellent evidence that the AP hid a story that attracted instant negative reactions from across the country. There was no reason to delete this interesting and newsworthy comment beyond protecting Obama, and there is no reasonable angle that this comment helps Obama or that the AP is biased against him whatsoever.

    You’re just refusing to dignify legitimate questions, and responding with insults that we’re arrogant to tell the truth. It’s totally unpersuasive, even to a staunch liberal, since we’re relying on evidence reasonably.

    Of course, yesterday you accused me of being a liberal plant. I think you’re just randomly trying to be ugly.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  45. Why would they do that?

    Any number of reasons. One of them has already been suggested (comment #20). Space might be another consideration. Relevancy (in relation to the rest of the article) is another.

    When written works get revised, things get added and cut for all kinds of reasons, and it’s not necessarily a big conspiracy. That’s what revision IS.

    Kman (5576bf)

  46. that their intent was to “hide” it.

    What in the world?

    It was there, and then it was taken away deliberately.

    Are you suggesting this was a computer glitch? It’s been pointed out to millions of readers, and it hasn’t been added back in.

    I guess you can just deny every basic fact and hear no evil, but are you just here to repeatedly announce you are an idiot, or are you here to try to make a persuasion of some kind? Oh yeah, you’re here to get Aaron’s attention, going on 9 years.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  47. Oh, I think I can guess your answer. But that fact says less about me and more about you.

    1) How did I “spin” the video?

    2) How is it an unreasonable assumption that if someone is having trouble keeping their car filled up with gas, they’ll probably have more trouble trading it in?

    3) Why am I even trying to reason with you?

    (Yeah, I know the answer to that one. I’m a glutton for trollfare.)

    Demosthenes (ca616f)

  48. Aaron has presented excellent evidence that the AP hid a story that attracted instant negative reactions from across the country

    Bwwwhahahahaha! The country has 307,000,000 people in it. How many negative reactions were there? The authors of four or five blogs?

    Kman (5576bf)

  49. I’m a glutton for trollfare.

    Join the party!

    Dustin (c16eca)

  50. kman

    > I’ve already acknowledged that my ideology influences how I interpret the video

    right, you’re a master of seeing both sides of the issue. which is why you respond to posts without apparently reading them. and why you tell me i am wrong in my critique of a case without reading it either.

    Our track record in debating these things is always you are stuck in your ideology, which is always unprincipled. and i can see where the other side came from.

    Take Fair v. Rumsfeld. you and i argued over that and you proved you not only couldn’t understand how the conservatives on the court would see things, you didn’t even understand how the liberals on the court would see it. i told you that i expected several liberals to side with Rumsfeld and you said you thought Fair would win outright. we were both wrong. Rumsfeld won, unanimously.

    I have a track record i can cite of knowing exactly how liberals think. that is bluntly one of my gifts as an advocate–i know what the other side thinks and therefore i can better identify the flaw in their argument. Where is your record on understanding conservatives?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  51. Re: video – someone needs to tell that man if he’s goin’ to get all folksy and Southernish when he criticizes, he needs to add “Bless your heart” somewhere in the lecture.

    Softens the blow.

    em (0a64a7)

  52. Any number of reasons. One of them has already been suggested (comment #20). Space might be another consideration. Relevancy (in relation to the rest of the article) is another.

    When written works get revised, things get added and cut for all kinds of reasons, and it’s not necessarily a big conspiracy. That’s what revision IS.

    You keep ignoring the point.

    If they removed relevant passages from the original story, why didn’t they acknowledge it?

    TomB (03bb50)

  53. How many negative reactions were there?

    A few hundred, easily.

    And the readership is probably at least one third of political readers of any media.

    Say, let’s use your own test, Kman. Once again you have relied on ad hoc arguments that don’t work very well for you. How many people on the left presented the argument you said was equally valid, that the conservative AP deleted this video because it was an effective aid to Obama to expose it? How many liberal bloggers even mentioned this quote at all? I bet 99% of them were reacting specifically to conservatives noting the AP is in full censorship shill mode.

    so go ahead, Kman. You established the metric, let’s see if you can live up to your own rules.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  54. “So why did they hide it?”

    Because it makes him look like Marie Antoinette saying “Let them eat cake”. That’s why.

    He’s riding around in a car, paid for by taxpayers, that gets MAYBE 1 mpg, with the taxpayer also picking up the gas tab, and when taxpayers complain about the price of gas for THEIR cars…he just laughs at them and suggests that they buy a new car.

    He looks like what he is: a class A selfish asshole…and AP knows that’s what it looks like…so they modified their story a tad.

    Dave Surls (f1caa8)

  55. Reminds me of when Obama told an audience that rather than schedule an expensive surgery, someone would be better off taking pain meds. That quote was also subsequently scrubbed from later versions of the same news article.

    This example of Obama just makes him look like a patronizing jerk.

    EC (dda60e)

  56. I really don’t mind if Obama’s rolling around in a tank limo. I assume it’s a diesel and gets around 5-10 miles per gallon (even tracked vehicles with 500 horsepower get more than 3).

    But the reason I find that acceptable is because Obama has a special need for a heavy car. A man or woman with a family, even with three kids, needs a larger vehicle. Most homeowners have plenty of use for a pickup truck. A Honda Odyssey can be an extremely efficient tool for the job of homemaker. Obama is a hypocrite to use the most efficient vehicle for his needs while denying others that same freedom.

    In fact, he gives no second thought to his limo or SUV (I recall that story where someone bought his cigarette stench laden Jeep Grand Cherokee, which is basically the only Chrysler worth buying, btw). He’s elite, and we aren’t. He doesn’t think about the needs of a working family, he thinks about the needs of his elite supporters. Unions who need people to buy Volts, and political factions who need gas prices to skyrocket.

    The core truth on display here is that Obama doesn’t think he works for the American people. He has a completely different set of people whose interests he cares about. He represents them, and wants gasoline to be extremely expensive as a result.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  57. He said during the campaign, at the SF Chronicle editorial board interview, that ‘electricity prices
    would necessarily skyrocket’ and furthermore that
    he wasn’t so concerned about $4 or $5 gas, just that the price had gone up so quickly, so there is nothing new about his attitude, just a poor reflection on the fools who chose to ignore those
    facts.

    narciso (cfef6a)

  58. narciso is right. Gas prices are a major facet of Obama’s policies, and they have been for a long time. Gas prices are an urgent aspect of this country’s situation, that the AP has a duty to discuss.

    Would the AP even dream of deleting Bush 41’s grocery store scanner gaffe (I realize it’s been embellished, but regardless).

    Of course not. It’s extremely unprofessional to remove news that is true and newsworthy, but helps the powerful politician. Narciso points out that it’s even more absurd, since Obama’s the guy who raised the gas prices via many of his decisions, and he promised to do so.

    But yeah, Kman, we’re crazy to complain that it was scrubbed. And arrogant.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  59. Obama forgot the most important piece of advice to the lumpen proletariat he was addressing – PROPERLY INFLATE YOUR TIRES!

    The man was a stickler for that on the campaign trail.

    Also, people have got to bust his butt over that BS 2%/20% or 25% comparison. Based on regulation, we can make that ratio whatever we want by opening or closing different areas to drilling. Open most areas and we are at consumption to reserve parity, but the ecotards and Democrats (BIRM) don’t want people to know that so they avoid talking about how that 2% is a completely artificial statistic.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  60. Energy prices must necessarily skyrocket, he just hoped it would happen while someone else was in charge.

    JD (3ee1ee)

  61. No, JD, that was the ‘feature not the bug’ of his cap n trade scheme.

    narciso (cfef6a)

  62. Either way, narciso, he knew it would come, and wanted it to, just not so quickly.

    JD (3ee1ee)

  63. btw, if anyone could find the quote where obama said gas prices rose faster than he would like, i have been looking for it for ages. my google skillz have failed me.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  64. Well sure, he was talking about cars. But Barry didn’t mention Republicans or slurpees so how could it possibly be newsworthy?

    elissa (b2da86)

  65. The video used to be here. It’s gone now.

    Barack Obama: I think that… we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn’t had an energy policy.* And as a consequence we’ve been consuming energy as if it’s infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are.

    Harwood: So could the (high) oil prices help us?

    Barack Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers…

    that was on CNBC, but unfortunately it’s always linked to the youtube video, so the kmans of the world will claim the Koch brothers wrote it.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  66. I have a track record i can cite of knowing exactly how liberals think. that is bluntly one of my gifts as an advocate

    …in your mind.

    How do you KNOW that you “know exactly” how liberals think? You don’t! You’re just guessing.

    You certainly don’t know what I think half the time. You put words in my mouth (e.g., “so therefore you think that gays are Nazis” or some such sh*t), and when I correct you, you tell me that I am lying. You tell me I am lying… about my own opinion!

    As far as I can tell, only arrogance makes you think you “know exactly” how liberals think.

    Kman (5576bf)

  67. Oh, give it a rest, Kman.

    You claimed to know Aaron’s thoughts on this, and said his thoughts were to project his need to censor onto the AP. You are shameless.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  68. This is one of the many reasons, I thought the 2008
    campaign, was a thoroughly useless affair, those people that voted for Obama, they deserve the consequences of their actions, but why do we have to suffer alongside them, for their mistakes,

    narciso (cfef6a)

  69. “How do you KNOW that you “know exactly” how liberals think? You don’t! You’re just guessing.”

    Kman – Your reactions provide the proof. Q.E.D.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  70. “first of all by putting more money in their pockets” I don’t recall seeing any of that. Probably squandered it so quickly I wasn’t even aware of it.

    Interesting how kman rarely answers anyone else’s question except Aaron. He’s all over his. Questions, that is.

    PatAZ (d09837)

  71. ‘How do you KNOW that you “know exactly” how liberals think?’

    I’ve been studying lower lifeforms all my life, pal.

    Dave Surls (56caa6)

  72. Dave Surls–thanks for the Marie Antoinette Obama reference. I’m gonna be borrowing that.

    elissa (b2da86)

  73. Kman

    > How do you KNOW that you “know exactly” how liberals think?

    Asked and answered.

    > You tell me I am lying… about my own opinion!

    With most people they would enjoy a presumption of truth telling about their own opinions. But since you have been known to lie about what you actually said when the truth can be cut and pasted…

    For example in the thread on pinheads, you wrote, regarding Jones’ responsibility for the deaths of those UN workers in Afghanistan:

    > [you] And I don’t say he’s ultimately responsible either. But I think the phrase “blood on his hands” is appropriate

    > [me] You’re not blaming him, you are just saying there is blood on his hands? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

    You tried to pretend there was no contradiction, writing:

    > I know. Too nuanced for you.

    So I pointed out with citations that “blood on your hands” was just another way of blaming him.

    > [you] I was using the phrase “blood on his hands” in the same sense that O’Reilly used it.

    > [me] Yes, and O’Reilly BLAMED JONES, TOO.

    > [you] O’Reilly spread the culpability around, yes. As do I.

    So in a few exchanges you went from denying that you were blaming Pastor Jones to admitting it, without even pretending to change you mind. So you did blame him and you lied about it and you were caught red handed. You lied about your opinion. And then you complain that in other cases i accuse you of doing what you provably did?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  74. I am wondering if his decision to go off and bomb Libya, which created the dreaded war on three fronts the lfeties were warning us about, might have any pressure on gas prices.

    And maybe the whole Saudi Arabia thing, that might have an effect…and kissing Chavez’s ass, maybe that does, and restricting oil exploration, maybe that might have something to do with it, and forcing the US car manufacturers in a National Socialist way to build the cars he wants to build, that might have something to do with it.

    Where are his transcripts, for those great colleges he supposedly attended?

    Rev Dr E Buzz (1eb242)

  75. elissa

    Ed morrissey goes in alot more on the marie antoinette comparison. one good line:

    > Just think how Marie Antoinette would have fared with a media so devoted to spinning for her.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/07/obamateurism-of-the-day-487/

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  76. you know, there is a little mirth, in Otto, from a ‘Fish called Wanda”s malapropism, but after a while, the joke gets quite old.

    narciso (cfef6a)

  77. I am wondering if his decision to go off and bomb Libya, which created the dreaded war on three fronts the lfeties were warning us about, might have any pressure on gas prices

    The cold truth about Libya is that it is a war to ensure Europe gets oil from one of its most major oil suppliers. This is why they have freed a terrorist or invaded, depending on the needs of the flow of oil.

    Much more that the Iraq war, this is a war for oil. It’s particularly hilarious to see France shift to war monger mode, with this facet in mind. France is often called this shrimpy cowardly nation, but the truth is they are the most ruthless Western nation.

    Oil is fungible, so of course this impacts US gas prices a lot. Obama’s motivation with Libya seems to have been to vote present and then cave to political consequences, basically the precise opposite of Bush in spirit. Granted, if Obama truly was concerned with oil prices, his behavior towards Egypt in particular would have been much different, to facilitate better relations with the Saudis. And he’d have probably not been so forgiving of Qaddafi before his flip flop.

    His oil moratorium also sheds some light on his wishes, not that his blatantly expressing his desire for oil scarcity on CNBC leaves any room for doubt.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  78. IIRC Obama thinks $5 a gallon for gas is a good price, yes? Even if he said something else now, we wouldn’t believe him, would we? But I guess we’re not supposed to remember things, “The news is what they say it is”, and so is history, apparently.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  79. So he’s purposely running hte price of gas up…to wean us from our addiction?

    Let’s give him a credit that he is expanding drilling in Brazil, or attempting to, for us and our gas prices.

    Is that such a good idea? What does it say about someone who does that without explaining it? That he’s a liar?

    Therefore, if we are considering him a type of new politician, that can’t be true. I for one, don’t think he’s smart enough to figure a lot of things out.

    Apparently the market for gas isn’t responding to his ideas.

    I wonder what kind of scrubbing economic historians in the future will give him. LBJ, Carter, Obama…

    It’s actually kind of frightening to see what he’s doing, if you know anything about economics.

    Rev Dr E Buzz (1eb242)

  80. Let’s give him a credit that he is expanding drilling in Brazil, or attempting to, for us and our gas prices.

    Just remember that his biggest support was heavily invested in Brazil oil drilling being hugely profitable. so high gas prices and support for expanded drilling outside the USA combines, if you take that ‘Obama is corrupt’ theory.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  81. It had occurred to me that he would be driving prices up on purpose. Who benefits from that, and who suffers…well, those two groups sort of fit together.

    But I can’t really believe that he could be MORE corrupt that CheneyHalliburtonBush! Not a Chicago politician of nebulous origin and philosophical makeup…he looks too damn cool in sunglasses!

    A guy with that great smile can’t be corrupt.

    Rev Dr E Buzz (1eb242)

  82. Kman is an american hating POS who thinks burning flags because you hate bush is ok.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  83. obama’s idea of energy independence and yours may not be the same. obama wants us to live independent of any source of energy.

    tommy mc donnell (397858)

  84. Yes tommy and he is a great person cause of it right?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  85. I suppose that it doesn’t fall under their “correction policy” because the information wasn’t a mistake.

    Including the information was the mistake.

    Anonyma (e5eb3e)

  86. A life independent of any source of energy would have us breaking rocks and rubbing sticks together ala cavemen. Come to think of it, maybe that’s exactly what Obama wants.

    Rochf (f3fbb0)

  87. Independent of any source of energy?

    Sounds about right, it’s the ideas of a stupid lefty douche who doesn’t understand how things are made.

    And Obama, well, he is a stupid lefty douche. But hey, he can afford all this shit, he is president…us, we have to suffer. he’s creating one of those dystopias of science fiction novels that the lefties warned us Jim Bakker and Pat Robertson were creating, because of, like, corporations and stuff.

    Where are those scary good college transcripts?

    Yes, Atlas Shrugged.

    Rev Dr E Buzz (1eb242)

  88. Since we’re picking on AP, they’ve apparently struck again. Several sites including Hotair are writing that AP screwed up the Wisconsin numbers for the Prosser- Kloppenberg race that they sent out and announced to the world. Although Kloppenberg hurriedly declared victory, Prosser is actually the one ahead. (This is from the reported numbers from the counties, not any sort of recount.)

    Watch for the correction from AP, now!!!

    elissa (b2da86)

  89. It’s pathetic that Kloppenburg didn’t even bother to check the AP’s totals, or verify the counts with the counties, before rushing to declare victory. It was absolutely ridiculous to do so with no clear winner, just as it would be for Prosser to do so (and he isn’t doing so).

    It’s the move of a shameless political hack, rushing for PR points. I guess the democrats will come to regret that push to stop counting the votes.

    Either way, elissa, only a moron relies on the AP, and that explains a lot.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  90. Come to europe and you’ll se what high gas prices really means!

    Evan Foster (2e782f)

  91. klop knows she won. the union is stuffing the ballot boxes as fast as they can.

    prosser is up by what? 40 votes? they could fix that in their sleep.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  92. ==It’s pathetic that Kloppenburg didn’t even bother to check the AP’s totals, or verify the counts..==

    Yes indeed, Dustin. That’s some crack legal mind and eye for detail she’s demonstrating there. The perfect credentials and traits for a state supreme court judge, I’d say. Of course the numbers are so close that there will probably be a recount and the final results and winner may not be known for some time. What a bizarre race that one has been.

    elissa (b2da86)

  93. Wisconsin has not impressed me, that’s for sure. What a disaster of an election.

    Aaron, 7000 votes for Prosser weren’t counted in the totals, apparently. Which partly explains why his strongest county was showing much weaker turnout than the rest of the state.

    All I know is there is no clear winner, and the process has been screwed up at every step. A recount would be nice, but they will screw that up too. Whether Prosser wins or Kloppy, the voters lost.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  94. kman: Still waiting for your response to my #49. Anytime.

    Demosthenes (96366d)

  95. kman doesn’t care about you unless you are Aaron and he’s wearing a wedding dress and writing his name with “worthing’ on the end in lipstick all over the computer screen.

    so he kinda doesn’t answer questions from others very reliably.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  96. Kman doesn’t care for free speech unless your a muslim burning the american flag.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  97. Did they screw it up, or just omitted it, evidence would suggest the latter, with regards to the AP,

    narciso (cfef6a)

  98. “If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

    Obama did say the above, am I correct?

    The answer Obama IS, hopefully that trade-in will occur in the latter part of 2012. So begin processing those last minute edicts, so the next President can void all of them..

    Laugh at that one!

    JP (c4988c)

  99. I guess you can just deny every basic fact and hear no evil, but are you just here to repeatedly announce you are an idiot

    He has to announce it?

    Darth Venomous (c8614a)

  100. The Galopagos uses wind power for their energy. Is that working out obots?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  101. The reality remains, that the Democrats’ policies are most destructive towards the people they – falsely – claim are their own constituents.

    The Democrats’ policies are most destructive to the very people that they’ve kept on their plantation.

    And if the destructive policies of the Democrats are not immediately reversed, the hardship of the working poor will only get worse, much much worse.

    Because the reality is that the Democrats are attempting to placate the tiny minority of rich, smug, faux-“green” nuts that form the fanatical core of the Democrat’s left wing.

    Tought titties to the people actually trying to work for a living and feed their families from honest work.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  102. He has to announce it?

    It’s helpful information to anyone who may not read this site regularly.

    malclave (1db6c5)

  103. “The reality remains, that the Democrats’ policies are most destructive towards the people they – falsely – claim are their own constituents.”

    SPQR – What are you talking about? Detroit used to be a lovely city.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  104. daleyrocks, do you know the price of unleaded regular gasoline in Detroit this week? I’m curious …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  105. 47.Why would they do that?

    Any number of reasons. One of them has already been suggested (comment #20). Space might be another consideration. Relevancy (in relation to the rest of the article) is another.

    Good heavens! Is the internet running out of spa-

    Felipe (d37996)

  106. What’s wrong with this? It’s much like when I go down to help the homeless by lecturing them on the benefits of homeownership. After all, house prices are cheap and interest rates are rock bottom. But they never seem to listen. I guess that’s why they’re homeless.

    Kevin M (298030)

  107. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

    …for reporting on this. AP has been pulling this stunt for YEARS. If you see an AP story in the morning that looks like it could be fairly political, copy the story link into another window or tab and refresh it throughout the day, you can see how AP updates a story throughout the day as quotes from various Democrats come in when compared with the original article in the first window.

    I’ve even seen where they remove quotes from Republicans but never the Democrats…or even add or correct quotes from Democrats…and never once without indicating the story has changed.

    AP has been little more than a leftist blog since long before blogging was even something to do.

    Bohica (2266d5)

  108. Personally, I think the sleeper quote in the Obama video isn’t his condescending attitude toward a man with 10 children, or even the look he gave when he said “10”, like he was thinking “this is why we need Planned Parenthood offering cheap abortions”.

    No, it was when he talked about how “we” raised energy efficiency standards — (which they haven’t actually done yet, they simply made a plan to do so), and then actually BRAGGED that they didn’t do it by passing a “law” (in a manner that makes that whole “passing laws” thing sound like some quaint notion from a by-gone era), but rather by browbeating the car companies into accepting a “voluntary” plan.

    Charles (90b880)

  109. Obviously, Obama believes it is GOOD for Brazil to drill for oil. He does not believe WE should. And if you can’t afford to pay $4 a gallon for gas, the solution is to buy a new $15,000 or $25,000 car. Why didn’t I think of that? Because unlike the President, I have a grasp on reality.

    Russ (cf994d)

  110. Obama want the gas price to go high and stay high. It is his and the dem’s way of forcing americans to purchase small gas economy cars. That is why he is blocking the US from oil drilling

    mike (7ee7ea)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4300 secs.