Recently in The State of Media Category

Sometime ago I subscribed to the Al Jazeera English channel on youtube. It is interesting to see world news coverage from their perspective. Here's a selection from their coverage of the last 5 days. The last one called Street Food (2 parts) is absolutely fascinating -- a bit of history, current events, tourist, and culinary taste trip through Mumbai all in one.

Just imagine some of this coverage on US media channels.

-- Al Jazeera English reports (video) on the tearing down of a Hare Krishna temple and dispossession of land in Kazakhstan.

Human rights groups have put Kazakhstan in the spot light for its treatment of religious minority groups.

A long running dispute between the authorities and Hare Krishna followers could end with the destruction of the country's only Hindu temple.

Robin Forestier Walker reports from Kazakhstan.

-- More reporting from Al Jazeera English on South Korea's "Fighters for a Free North Korea" activists. It's an interesting story.

-- The story on voting in Kashmir, India -- a part of Al Jazeera's Inside Story series.

Voters in Indian-administered Kashmir started heading for the polls on Monday, November 17, amid tight security. Voting for the 87 assembly seats comprising the state government is being held in seven stages until December 24, 2008.

So far, around 55 per cent of Indian-controlled Kashmir's 6.4 million strong electorate have turned out to vote, including many Muslims, who separatists and rebels are urging to boycott the elections to protest against New Delhi's hold over the Himalayan region.

Indian-administered Kashmir was put under direct federal rule in July, after the state government collapsed following its controversial decision to donate land in to a Hindu pilgrim trust. About 70 per cent of the region's population is Muslim. This year has seen some of the biggest anti-India protests in the Kashmir Valley since an insurgency began in 1989.

Part 1 --

Part 2 --

-- Al Jazeera English reports on how the world financial credit crisis has impacted Hungary's economy.

-- Street Food: "In the first of a new series Al Jazeera's Divya Gopalan attempts to understand the real Mumbai by taking a culinary journey through its Street Food."

Part 1

Part 2

TPM pointed out this post by David Cay Johnston, "the former NYT reporter who won a Pulitzer for his reporting on tax policy". He addresses journalists but his points are equally applicable to any following what's going on in Congress and on Wall Street.

Mr. Johnston starts with this point:

In covering the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street don't repeat the failed lapdog practices that so damaged our reputations in the rush to war in Iraq and the adoption of the Patriot Act. Don't assume that Congress must act instantly, as so many news stories state as if it was an immutable fact. Don't assume there is a case just because officials say there is.

The coverage of the Paulson plan focuses on the edges, on the details. The focus should be on the premise. And be skeptical of what gullible Congressional leaders, most of them up before the voters in a few weeks, say after being given a closed-door meeting on supposed horrors.

The Administration has scared the markets and some key legislative leaders, but it has not laid out a coherent, specific and compelling need for this enormous proposal, which is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge. (Instead the money will be borrowed, so ask from whom and how this much can be raised so quickly if the credit markets are nearly seized up with fear.)

Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up?

He goes onto to outline how available credit appears to be to business people of his acquaintance as well as the continued offers for credit that he's receiving personally. He asks a lot of good questions about why banks aren't renegotiating loans with people who can afford their current loan rates but not the new rates that they are about to balloon up to. He asks why ridiculous loan packages are still being offered on the internet. He asks why banks aren't working with landlords and small business owners.

Then he asks why journalists aren't asking these questions. He points out that the media appears to be going along with the administration's urging to rush through and do something.

Craig Ferguson, host of The Late, Late Show and a new American citizen delivers the word to the media and the citizens of this country. This is the epitome of a righteous rant to which we all must say. Amen brother, preach it. [via]

The second half of Craig's admonition:

No one could do any better than Glenn Greenwald in describing the inanity of the current focus of the McCain campaign, the trad media and the chattering classes.

Just for the record, here's the complete Obama statement which has been twisted by the McCain campaign. I won't go into the history of how many times McCain and Obama, much less other politicians, have used the same phrase in discussing various policies and issues over the last 2 years.

John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington.

That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing.

Here's the video. It seems Andrew Romano of Newsweek's The Stumper blog agrees.

It's another viral email that unfortunately has more truth in it than many would like to admit. It definitely skewers the media, old and new. [via]

• If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "token hire."
• If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "game changer."
• Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America .
• White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."
• If you grow up in Hawaii you're "exotic."
• Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential "American story."
• Similarly, if you name your kid Barack you're "unpatriotic."
• Name your kid Track, you're "colorful."
• If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African Amerian voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.
• If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you've got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do so because your state is the closest state to Russia.

The trad media seems to have figured it out. John McCain and Sarah Palin are lying about the signature item they're using in all their stump speeches. That Bridge to Nowhere -- Sarah Palin fully supported it. And when she realized that it wasn't going to happen -- that Congress was killing it -- she still took the money and used it elsewhere.

Here's how the Wall Street Journal reported it.

She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.

A year ago, the governor issued a press release that the money for the project was being "redirected."

TPM points out in Meme Taking Hold?:

Funny how much St. Paul this week looks like Beijing in the last month or so. Police intimidating peaceful people because they're afraid they may present the wrong image. It's yet another RNC convention whose organizers and supporters so fear the presence of any who might present messages contrary to their own that they are willing to violate, or have violated on their behalf, the First Amendment rights and civil liberties of American citizens.

It's just like Philly in 2000 or NYC in 2004. The Philly 2000 story by dengre provides a highly revealing look into how these actions come about and I strongly encourage you to start with it. The comprehensive NY Times report on just how extensively the police infiltrated and spied prior to the convention, issued in March 2007, gives some clue as to what is happening now. The Wikipedia summary of the police actions at the 2004 RNC convention gives an idea of the scope of the activities they viewed as suspicious.

I've written more than once about the state of the media, lamenting the mush and drivel and desertion of duty that is so prevalent. Frank Rich noticed it too and today he wrote about it.

All week long a media chorus had fretted whether he could pull off a potentially vainglorious stunt before 80,000 screaming fans. Well, yes he can, and so he did.

But was this a surprise? Hardly. No major Obama speech -- each breathlessly hyped in advance as do-or-die and as the "the most important of his career" -- has been a disaster; most have been triples or home runs, if not grand slams. What is most surprising is how astonished the press still is at each Groundhog Day's replay of the identical outcome. Indeed, the disconnect between the reality of this campaign and how it is perceived and presented by the mainstream media is now a major part of the year's story.

Frank goes on to outline how the Obama campaign was not taken in by this narrative but that the McCain campaign was.

Hillary was great. She did exactly what needed doing right from the start of her speech. And all the nattering nabobs of negativity are just nattering nincompoops looking for a way to say something controversial so they can get paid for spinning.

In case you missed it, here's the video. Her delivery was spot on.

Other people thought so too. The Boston Globe called it "The Speech of her Life". The right-Leaning Us News and World Report did a roundup of the rave reviews. Margaret Carlson at Bloomberg had a great take on it. The LA Times has a transcript of the actual speech up. Blogger reports from the floor of the convention indicate that it was really inspiring there as well.

The disunity myth being pushed by the nattering nabobs is just that - a myth. From MissLaura at dkos: "Blue Hampshire blogger Mike Hoefer got an important piece of PDMA (Party Disunity My Ass): Kathy Sullivan and Mary Rauh, New Hampshire state co-chairs of the Clinton and Obama campaigns, respectively, address the traditional media's insistence on pushing the myth of disunity."

The audio is not great but the gist of it is, what party disunity? They both say that the media has blown it way out of proportion.

There have been some good speeches at the DNC thus far but you wouldn't know it by listening to the nattering nabobs. Of course, there's the Jim Leach speech which isn't barnburner quality but is one of the most thoughtful, substantive speeches that's been delivered thus far. Then there's Gov. Brian Schweitzer's speech which just rocked.

Here's one of the best snippets:

Boy, did he nail that one. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, you might want to check out the selection of dead-on quotes from last night's speeches by Muzikal203. Check them out even if you do watch it.

Here's the complete speech video clip.

Then there's Dennis Kucinich. He's a little farther left in the Democratic continuum than I'm generally comfortable with so I didn't watch his speech on C-SPAN. But someone highlighted the youtube clip on dkos so I checked it out. He really got the delegates fired up. But you never saw a minute of that on any of the network or cable news shows.

As for tonight, I expect John Kerry will be in fighting form and of course, Bill Clinton is always entertaining no matter what he talks about and then we'll top the evening off with Joe Biden, Sounds like a lively evening ahead.

And remember C-SPAN is definitely the way to go. No nitwits nattering away ignoring the action at the convention.

Last night I happened to pause on Fox News as I was going from C-SPAN to MSNBC for Michelle's post-speech coverage and heard Brit Hume say that Sasha piping up and asking Daddy where he was, gave Obama a chance to correct what he had said before. The other person on with him said 'oh?' And Brit went on, 'yeah, he said St. Louis the first time.'

I was surprised because I hadn't heard Barack say St. Louis but I wasn't paying that close attention to just what city he had said.

Well this clip makes it clear that Barack didn't slip at all and Brit Hume made that up out of whole cloth. Yep. Brit Hume lied on TV.

Here's what's funnier.

John Hinderaker over at Powerline blog just repeated Hume's lie without verifying it. Highly illustrative of just how the smears get passed from one Republican mouthpiece to another.

The most impressive performance turned in at the Democratic convention last night was by one of the Obamas' children. When Barack appeared on-screen at the end of his wife's speech, he delivered his usual gaffe, announcing that he was in St. Louis when in fact he was in Kansas City. At the end of the bit, his daughter gave him chance to retrieve the error by asking, "What city are you in, Daddy?" The second time, he got it right.

Nice catch!

Nice catch indeed. Thanks for demonstrating just how you pass along the smears from the mothership, John.

UPDATE: He does say St. Louis after he says Kansas City as his opener when he's introducing the Girardeau (sp?) family.

Guess I should have watched the clip a third time. Sorry Brit and John.

A new Pew Research Center Report on their biennial news consumption survey (pdf), conducted in primarily in May 2008, found "four distinct segments in today's news audience: Integrators, who comprise 23% of the public; the less populous Net-Newsers (13%); Traditionalists -- the oldest (median age: 52) and largest news segment (46% of the public); and the Disengaged (14%) who stand out for their low levels of interest in the news and news consumption."

In reviewing the definitions of the various categories, I'd have to say that the blogosphere population probably falls heavily into the Net-Newsers category.

Integrators

Integrators, who get the news from both traditional sources and the internet, are a more engaged, sophisticated and demographically sought-after audience segment than those who mostly rely on traditional news sources. Integrators share some characteristics with a smaller, younger, more internet savvy audience segment.

Like web-oriented news consumers, Integrators are affluent and highly educated. However, they are older, on average, than those who consider the internet their main source of news. Overall, Integrators spend more time with the news on a typical day than do those who rely more on either traditional or internet sources; far more enjoy keeping up with the news a lot than in any other news segment.

Integrators also are heavier consumers of national news -- especially news about politics and Washington -- and are avid sports news consumers. Television is their main news source, but more than a third cite the internet as their primary source of news during the day. This reflects the fact that a relatively large proportion of Integrators log on to the internet from work (45%).

Net-Newsers

Net-Newsers are the youngest of the news user segments (median age: 35). They are affluent and even better educated than the News Integrators: More than eight-in-ten have at least attended college. Net-Newsers not only rely primarily on the internet for news, they are leading the way in using new web features and other technologies. Nearly twice as many regularly watch news clips on the internet as regularly watch nightly network news broadcasts (30% vs. 18%).

This web-oriented news segment, perhaps more than the others, underscores the challenges facing traditional news outlets. Fewer than half (47%) watch television news on a typical day. Twice as many read an online newspaper than a printed newspaper on a typical day (17% vs. 8%), while 10% read both.

However, Net-Newsers do rely on some well known traditional media outlets. They are at least as likely as Integrators and Traditionalists to read magazines such as The New Yorker and The Atlantic, and somewhat more likely to get news from the BBC.

Fully 82% of Net-Newsers get news during the course of the day, far more than the Traditionalists and the Disengaged, and slightly more than the Integrators. Nearly all who get news at this time go online for information (92%). Yet they do tap traditional sources at other times of the day; nearly two-thirds get news late in the evening and of these, more rely on television news than the internet.

Traditionalists

Despite sweeping changes in the news landscape, Traditionalists remain the largest segment of the overall news audience. Compared with the Integrators and Net-Newsers, Traditionalists are downscale economically -- 43% are not employed and 60% have no more than a high school education.

Television dominates as the favored news source among Traditionalists. And at each time of the day -- whether morning, daytime, dinner hour, or late at night -- overwhelming majorities who get news at these times cite television as their main source. Unlike the news Integrators, or those who mostly get news from the web, most Traditionalists say that seeing pictures and video, rather than reading or hearing the facts, gives them the best understanding of events.

Disengaged

Most Americans fall into the three core news audiences -- Integrators, Traditionalists, or Net-Newsers. The fourth group -- the Disengaged -- are very much bystanders when it comes to news consumption. They are less educated on average than even the Traditionalists and exhibit extremely low interest in -- and knowledge of -- current events. Just 55% of the Disengaged get any news on a typical day, and just 20% know that the Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives.

In my household of 4 people, I think we would all fall into the Net-Newsers category. Three of us have configured our browsers configured with iGoogle for newsfeeds. The other one (me) hits the NY Times, Washington Post and the political blogs online first thing every morning. We all listen to NPR in the morning, every morning. One of us also listens to NPR's All Things Considered in the afternoon daily, the others catch it as they can. One sees the local daily newspaper, primarily for the suduko and crossword puzzles but also the local headlines. None of us watch local TV news. All of us watch video clips of news online at least several times a week. Two of us read the weekend/Sunday editions of the New York Times and the local paper, The Connecticut Post. We occasionally watch cable news, MSNBC or CNN, though never the regular network TV broadcasts. We do know that we are atypical news consumers - far more connected and conversant in national and international news than our neighbors, family and friends.

Our news consumption habits place us in a group that is and will be growing. The Pew report notes that "since 2006, the proportion of Americans who say they get news online at least three days a week has increased from 31% to 37%. About as many people now say they go online for news regularly (at least three days a week) as say they regularly watch cable news (39%); substantially more people regularly get news online than regularly watch one of the nightly network news broadcasts (37% vs. 29%)."

Changing their ways

What I wonder is why the cable news and traditional nightly network broadcast news organizations don't make it easier to view and share their news segments online. They've gone to all the trouble and expense to produce them. They have them in digital format. Why not make them available to people who didn't happen to be parked in front of a television at the time they chose to air them? And the ability to both view and share easily may win them more viewers in the long run.

We share video links via IM and email all the time. It makes sense to me that news organizations, both TV-based and print-based, would want to take advantage of the viral marketing opportunity that that kind of sharing makes possible.

[via]

I think Frank Rich earned his NYT salary this week. First, he took a swipe at the 'chicken littles':

AS I went on vacation at the end of July, Barack Obama was leading John McCain by three to four percentage points in national polls. When I returned last week he still was. But lo and behold, a whole new plot twist had rolled off the bloviation assembly line in those intervening two weeks: Obama had lost the election!

Then he was "churlish" enough to point out some actual facts and ended that section by pointing out that the most significant poll was one by the Pew Research Center which found "that only 26 percent feel [they've heard too much] about McCain, and that nearly 4 in 10 Americans feel they hear too little about him." He then proceeded to set the record straight on McCain in blistering language.

What is widely known is the skin-deep, out-of-date McCain image. As this fairy tale has it, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors. He strenuously opposed the execution of the Iraq war; he slammed the president's response to Katrina; he fought the "agents of intolerance" of the religious right; he crusaded against the G.O.P. House leader Tom DeLay, the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and their coterie of influence-peddlers.

With the exception of McCain's imprisonment in Vietnam, every aspect of this profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct.

Next he delineated just why each aspect mentioned above is inaccurate. He continued on with an assessment of the media's laziness in covering McCain. I suspect he's thinking of the broadcast media types though he didn't say that specifically. TalkingPointsMemo came in for a great acknowledgment of their coverage of McCain.

While reporters at The Post and The New York Times have been vetting McCain, many others give him a free pass. Their default cliché is to present him as the Old Faithful everyone already knows. They routinely salute his "independence," his "maverick image" and his "renegade reputation" -- as the hackneyed script was reiterated by Karl Rove in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column last week. At Talking Points Memo, the essential blog vigilantly pursuing the McCain revelations often ignored elsewhere, Josh Marshall accurately observes that the Republican candidate is "graded on a curve."

Most Americans still don't know, as Marshall writes, that on the campaign trail "McCain frequently forgets key elements of policies, gets countries' names wrong, forgets things he's said only hours or days before and is frequently just confused." Most Americans still don't know it is precisely for this reason that the McCain campaign has now shut down the press's previously unfettered access to the candidate on the Straight Talk Express.

He further illustrated the difference in diligence by discussing the coverage of the potential first ladies and here The Jed Report was used as a source on Cindy McCain's numerous residences.

To appreciate the discrepancy in what we know about McCain and Obama, merely look at the coverage of the potential first ladies. We have heard too much indeed about Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis, her pay raises at the University of Chicago hospital, her statement about being "proud" of her country and the false rumor of a video of her ranting about "whitey." But we still haven't been inside Cindy McCain's tax returns, all her multiple homes or private plane. The Los Angeles Times reported in June that Hensley & Company, the enormous beer distributorship she controls, "lobbies regulatory agencies on alcohol issues that involve public health and safety," in opposition to groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The McCain campaign told The Times that Mrs. McCain's future role in her beer empire won't be revealed before the election.

He noted his conversation about McCain's unreliability with Rita Hauser who's co-founded the Republicans for Obama group and concluded his column with this admonition.

As everyone says, polls are meaningless in the summers of election years. Especially this year, when there's one candidate whose real story has yet to be fully told.

So CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC .... consider yourselves admonished and get on with telling all of McCain's story. I have no hope for Fox ever telling anything like the truth.

And thanks, Frank, for speaking out so clearly.

Thomas Friedman earns his money today. This is another credit where credit is due post about Friedman's column summing up his trip to Greenland.

Sometimes you just wish you were a photographer. I simply do not have the words to describe the awesome majesty of Greenland's Kangia Glacier, shedding massive icebergs the size of skyscrapers and slowly pushing them down the Ilulissat Fjord until they crash into the ocean off the west coast of Greenland. There, these natural ice sculptures float and bob around the glassy waters near here. You can sail between them in a fishing boat, listening to these white ice monsters crackle and break, heave and sigh, as if they were noisily protesting their fate. [...]

Alas, though, I do not work for National Geographic. This is the opinion page. And my trip with Denmark's minister of climate and energy, Connie Hedegaard, to see the effects of climate change on Greenland's ice sheet leaves me with a very strong opinion: Our kids are going to be so angry with us one day.

We've charged their future on our Visa cards. We've added so many greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, for our generation's growth, that our kids are likely going to spend a good part of their adulthood, maybe all of it, just dealing with the climate implications of our profligacy. And now our leaders are telling them the way out is "offshore drilling" for more climate-changing fossil fuels.

Madness. Sheer madness. [...]

Greenland is one of the best places to observe the effects of climate change. Because the world's biggest island has just 55,000 people and no industry, the condition of its huge ice sheet -- as well as its temperature, precipitation and winds -- is influenced by the global atmospheric and ocean currents that converge here. Whatever happens in China or Brazil gets felt here. And because Greenlanders live close to nature, they are walking barometers of climate change.

That's how I learned a new language here: "Climate-Speak."

There's more about how speak "climate speak". It's very easy to learn according to Thomas.

Hilzoy wrote the blog post that I meant to write last Thursday or Friday. My husband called me up absolutely apoplectic over the Reuters article about McCain dishing on when Obama would be in Iraq.

"Is this how he plans to win the election? Get his opponent killed beforehand."

McCain did break a huge rule about not discussing travel into combat areas and I haven't heard that he's apologized for doing so yet. Hilzoy pointed out just how major this slip is.

This is not just another screwup from McCain. It is very, very serious. There are things you are just Not Supposed To Talk About. This is one of them. If McCain doesn't have the common sense, the decency, and the discipline not to talk about them, that's a very serious problem. Since I'm not willing to assume he did this out of malice, I have to conclude that he just let this slip. But if he were President, we would need to count on him not to let things like this slip. Apparently, we can't. And that's a very big deal.

So when do you think we'll see this discussed by the traditional media? Not ever would be my guess, though they did avoid making the same mistake themselves.

I noted earlier today in Reality Bites that NYT's sloppy journalism had struck again.

TPM Election Central has the story on NYT's latest goof-up. Seems that Adam Nagourney had a tale to tell and didn't let the facts in the poll (pdf) deter him. The Obama campaign looked at the reported data and identified a more than a few problems with Adam's narrative.

Now, via Karen Tumulty, Time's statistician Jackson Dykman has weighed in with some observations on the NYT article versus the poll.

I too was really struck by the NYT's characterization of its own poll. I read the full poll first and then the story when they posted it last night. I've rarely seen a story so wildly off from the actual data on which it is based.

Aside from point C in the Obama response (which is true and basically negates the story), the premise of the story is, well, utter nonsense. [...]

I can't decide whether it's the headline or the story that really creates the schism. The hed in the paper is: "Poll finds Obama candidacy isn't closing country's divisions on race."

Are you kidding me? The guy just wrapped up the nomination. Racial divisions in the U.S. have a wee bit of a 400-year head start on him. If Obama goes on to win the election, I really hope the Times does this poll again in four years. Whatever the result, THAT would be a story. [...]

Two other points. In the poll data, 79% of white voters think an Obama administration would treat both whites and blacks the same. And 82% of white voters think a McCain administration would treat both races the same. Okay, fine. The real story in this question is this--90% of black voters think Obama would treat whites and blacks the same, but only 50% of black voters think McCain would treat both races the same.

Yet Obama is the one who's failing to close "the country's divisions on race"?

Finally, I looked it up again because I couldn't believe it, but Point E in the Obama response is correct. Why on earth would the story say "there's even racial dissension over Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle: She was viewed favorably by 58% of black voters, compared with 24% of white voters."

The numbers for Cindy McCain: 20% favorable among white voters, 9% favorable among black voters (!!!)

I've long made the argument that journalists care wildly more about candidates' spouses than readers do, but someone needs to tell me why the racial dissension is "over Michelle Obama."

Thanks to Ms. Tumulty and Mr. Dykman for also weighing in.

Adam Nagourney does have a track record of deciding what the CW is and then writing his article to fit. He provided no end of frustration in his coverage of the Lieberman vs. Lamont race. This is just more of the same.

Between TalkingPointsMemo's followup on Ron Fournier's friendly words of encouragement to Karl Rove and JedReport's highlighting of Liz Sidoti's gift of sprinkled donuts and coffee (just like on the double talk express bus), Nedra Pickler's dubious contributions, Beth Fouhy's gooey "I miss Hillary" gusher, you have to shake your head and wonder what's happened to the AP.

Steve Benen identified some more head-scratchers:

I suppose the first time I noticed this "new" AP came in March, when Fournier wrote an item -- whether it was a news article or an opinion piece was unclear -- that said Barack Obama is "bordering on arrogance," "a bit too cocky," and that the senator and his wife "ooze a sense of entitlement." To substantiate the criticism, Fournier pointed to ... not a whole lot. It was basically the Republicans' "uppity" talking point in the form of an AP article.

But the AP's coverage has deteriorated since -- and it goes beyond just the AP giving John McCain donuts and McCain giving the AP barbecue. There was the slam-job on Obama that read like an RNC oppo dump, followed by a scathing, 900-word reprimand of Obama's decision to bypass the public financing system in the general election, filled with errors of fact and judgment.

When Obama unveiled his faith-based plan, the AP got the story backwards. When Obama talked about his Iraq policy on July 3, the AP said he'd "opened the door" to reversing course, even though he hadn't.

The AP's David Espo wrote a hagiographic, 1,200-word piece, praising McCain's "singular brand of combative bipartisanship," which was utterly ridiculous.

The AP pushed the objectivity envelope a little further with a mind-numbing, 1,100-word piece on Obama "being shadowed by giant flip-flops."

The AP flubbed the story on McCain joking about killing Iranians, and then flubbed the story about McCain's promise to eliminate the deficit. It's part of a very discouraging trend for the AP that's been ongoing for a while now.

Per Steve and Michael Calderone at Politico, the responsible party is the relatively new bureau chief, Ron Fournier who took over in May 2008. His predecessor, Sandy Johnson who was ousted in an unfriendly turnover regards him "as a threat to one of the most influential institutions in American journalism."

"I loved the Washington bureau," said Johnson, who left the AP after losing the prestigious position. "I just hope he doesn't destroy it."

It seems that all of this insertion of opinion and attitude into the AP's daily reporting is deliberate as part of Fournier's "accountability journalism". Politico noted:

Fournier himself, shortly before taking the job as bureau chief, wrote several models for what he's called "accountability journalism." A January lead declared that "Obama is bordering on arrogance." A month later, he began a column with "The Democratic nomination is now Barack Obama's to lose."

Fournier and other critics of the conventional press model, especially those on the left, have said that being released from the tired conventions of news writing is exactly what journalism needs.

By these lights, the mentality that presumes both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight is what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues.

Others warn that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing -- exactly the opposite of the AP's mission of "delivering fast, unbiased news."

The real question comes down to what do you pick as facts. There's this at the end of Calderone's article:

"But boy, when we can cut through the clutter, and we can say 'Barack Obama put politics over his word,' which he did -- that's a fact," Fournier said. "He did. He may not like the way Liz wrote it, but it is a statement of fact."

No, Ron, it isn't a statement of fact. At no time did Barack Obama ever promise to take public financing. You may not like that point because it destroys your great lead but it's true.

So, the lesson here is to start regarding the AP as uber-bloggers -- a group of writers doing news-based items wrapped in their opinions which they may or may not identify as facts whether or not they are truly facts.

You can take away the question mark on the title of this piece. It's definitely:

MsJoanne posted an item at TPMCafe which pointed to a longer post that she'd done at the zoo about a new book written by Rick Shenkman: How Ignorant Are We? The Voters Choose... but on the Basis of What? Mr. Shenkman is an associate professor of history at George Mason University and the founder and editor of GMU's History News Network website

MsJoanne excerpted a few stats I think we all should know about.

These statistics come from varying studies done over the last 20 years.

• 25% of Americans cannot name more than one of the five freedoms granted by the First Amendment.
• 20% know that there are 100 senators. 25% knew a US senator's term is six years.
• 40% can correctly identify and name the three branches of government. (Ed note: the author found this encouraging!)
• Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators.
• 34% know that it is the Congress that declares war.
• 35% know that Congress can override a presidential veto.
• 49% think the president can suspend the Constitution.
• 60% believe that he can appoint judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate.
• 45% believe that revolutionary speech is punishable under the Constitution.

Ok, that's politics. What about more general knowledge? Funny you should ask.

It's items like this one which underscore just how outrageous Fox News's assault on standards of journalism really is. Media Matters spotted it. Huffington Post highlighted it with this headline.

Just add it to the list of assaults documented by BraveNewFilms at foxattacks.com and foxnewsporn.com.

Here's just one more example.

Political analysts now notice a gap between professionals and managers. Professionals, like lawyers and media types, tend to vote and give Democratic. Corporate managers tend to vote and give Republican. The former get their values from competitive universities and the media world; the latter get theirs from churches, management seminars and the country club.

Where is the research on which David Brooks bases such statements?

What? There isn't any?

Then why would anyone bother reading what he has to say?

NYT -- you're wasting good money on him. Please get rid of him and give the money to the news division for some real reporters -- you know -- those people who use real facts.