« Third party hype: 2010 edition | Main | Robin Givhan constructs "Elena Kagan" »

May 24, 2010


I agree with Brendan that AP's work often suffers from forcing ambiguous issues into the fact-checking frame. And, I agree with Greg Sargent that their most aggressive stuff has been directed at the right. IMHO the reason is severe leftward tilt at the AP. Let's look at the examples in the two link provided in the post:

The quibble over "outsourcing" was a close question. I think the AP was justified in not calling it "bogus". Still, an inflamatory word was used, when it wasn't necessary.

The AP's "correction" regarding Kagan's lack of judicial experience is silly. Yes, some Kagan critics supported Miers, but nobody would deny that lack of judicial experience is a negative.

It was ridiculous for the AP to brand as false the claim that Kagan is an "ivory tower peacenik." She comes from academia, so the "ivory tower" part is correct. And, she took an anti-military stand on a major issue. As Dean of the Law School, she could have immediately moved to allow military reruiters on campus. She chose not to. The fact that she also said some nice things about the military when talking to a military audience doesn't overcome her anti-mililtary action.

And, it's beyond ridicule to assert that "Obama's handling of the Gulf spill 'shows little resemblance to Katrina'". Where's the resemblance metric? There are lot of similarities and lots of differences between Katrina and the Gulf spill. There's no objective way to say how big of little the resemblance is.

Based on these examples, it seems that the AP practice is to let anti-conservative spin stand and call anti-liberal spin "bogus."

It appears you're critical of Westen's "brain research." Maybe you're right. But are you suggesting that he and Lakoff are not dead on criticizing the Dems propensity to appeal to reason rather than emotions?

The comments to this entry are closed.