Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
GREAT SPEECH, TERRIBLE AP COVERAGE.
Obama's speech was remarkable, a synthesis of ideas and particular policy proposals. The AP, however, seems to have been watching some other guys talk as Keith Olbermann just pointed out:
But instead of dwelling on specifics, he laced the crowning speech of his long campaign with the type of rhetorical flourishes that Republicans mock and the attacks on John McCain that Democrats cheer. The country saw a candidate confident in his existing campaign formula: tie McCain tightly to President Bush, and remind voters why they are unhappy with the incumbent.
Mostly, however, he touched on major issues quickly and lightly. It's an approach that may intrigue and satisfy millions of viewers just starting to tune in to the campaign seriously. The crowd at Invesco Field cheered deliriously, but Republicans almost surely will decry the lack of specifics.
And then the story goes on to highlight places Obama ... talked about details. Then it says this:
Even if Obama had talked for three hours, of course, he could not have detailed enough proposals to quiet all his critics. But that's not the strategy.Allies such as Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will doubtlessly defend his approach. A few hours before the speech, she said: "What he should not do is what he will be criticized for not doing: Give a detailed policy speech. This is not the place for that."
She said Republicans will criticize him no matter what. They will argue that his lofty speeches lack substance and details, she said, and a detailed speech that scrimps on soaring rhetoric will prove "he has lost his gift."
"They will try to Catch-22 his speech," Napolitano said.
To summarize: Obama's critics say he doesn't talk about details. He gave a speech in which he mentioned some details but didn't get to others ("He said he would 'cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families,' but did not say how" -- does the guy want a bracket-by-bracket breakdown?). Even if he'd talked for longer (Olbermann pointed out he understates the length of the speech by at least 7 minutes) he couldn't have gotten in all the detail. Republicans will criticize him anyway.
What?! The entire "analysis" is completely nonsensical, but seems designed to leave a casual reader with an impression that Obama lacked substance. It admits he provided details, but then ignores its own admission. And, of course, this is only the latest in a long series of egregiously biased pieces of "analysis" form the AP.
--Sam Boyd
COMMENTS (17)
how do we fight against the new AP?
Posted by: kate | August 29, 2008 12:31 AM
Any criticism of Obama is instantly branded as biased. So,it's probably a waste of time to really analyze this evening's speech.
Posted by: wlgriffi | August 29, 2008 12:48 AM
Is there a list somewhere of the newspapers which subscribe to the AP, with contact info for their managing editors and/or publishers. The only way to change the AP is to hit them where it hurts by getting newspapers to rescind their subscriptions. And maybe convince Google to stop linking to AP stories.
Posted by: Andrew | August 29, 2008 12:49 AM
No, wlgriffi. Propaganda masquerading as news is the issue, not criticism of Senator Obama. The AP has a documented history.
Posted by: Sportin' Life | August 29, 2008 12:59 AM
This really was pretty disgraceful for the AP.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | August 29, 2008 1:13 AM
Its worth noting the AP changed the time of the speech on their website from 35 minutes (I'm guessing the planned length of the speech) to the actual length. Also, the article was posted just thirty minutes after Obama's speech ended. Finally, it seems to be a standard talking point attack about Obama's lack of substance (even though his policy proposals are clearer and more fleshed out than McCain's )that barely talks about the strong speech everyone else saw.
Posted by: Steven | August 29, 2008 1:34 AM
Be not deceived, God is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.
Whoever is behind this AP nastiness should take heed; God doesn't like ugly.
Posted by: Sunny Shine | August 29, 2008 2:24 AM
Rupert Murdoch and others of his ilk are on the board of AP. The editors are known as allies of the Republican party-- at least one is actively supporting McCain. Neither the people commenting nor, it seems, some new sites are aware of these facts. If someone broadcasts the facts, loudly and clear, AP will be completely discredited.
Posted by: PeterE | August 29, 2008 2:47 AM
What the AP published was not simply criticism. Criticism is fair and valid--addressing style, tone, substance, and policy is legit. But they engaged in polemics. Whatever you say about Obama--he is not LIGHTWEIGHT. They are trying to spin him as a fluff ball rock star--but it is at contrast with his message.
AP must be pushed back against. They are engaged in info-war.
Posted by: Billy Bardo | August 29, 2008 8:17 AM
How rich to have someone as biased and in love with Obama as Olbermann criticize another journalist for unfair reporting.
Posted by: cmr | August 29, 2008 8:21 AM
You do know the AP is there to bundle up cheap consumer news and sell it.
It's a marketer, not a new company.
My guess is the GOP paid heavily for this opinion piece, much like someone pays for those tidy little news reels about Florida orange juice and it's health benefits on the local network news at 7.
I'd ask the above again, how do we effectively fight them?
Posted by: Ryan | August 29, 2008 8:49 AM
Hey Sam AP actually wrote and released this article before Obama was finished giving his speech!
Posted by: Sarah | August 29, 2008 8:57 AM
Piece was bad, and that wasn't even the unusually loathsome Nedra Pickler. I worked at newspaper for nine years on the night copy desk and handled gazillions of AP stories, and while they were always workmanlike, plain, things, that was the point. They presented the news. The last couple of years, it has gotten downright weird, the "attitude" infusion, as Greg Mitchell called it. Really pretty bad. Stories like that are editorials, not news stories. You'd think a prominent news service would understand that distinction. Really quite amazing the way they've (at least it's Washington bureau, that's for darn sure) turned to grinding a right-wing ax. But depressing in the end.
Posted by: Tom | August 29, 2008 9:46 AM
And maybe convince Google to stop linking to AP stories.
And maybe you'll convince pigs to fly. Or convince Google to not roll-over to China and censor it's search results.
Contacting editors at papers is one thing . . . thinking your going to convince Google not to link to AP stories, and weather the storm that sort of domestic censorship would imply, is bizarre. If you want to "deal with AP" (the right hates the AP generally, believe it or not, so you might have some strange bedfellows in that fight), I'd suggest another tactic.
Posted by: Kevin S. Willis | August 29, 2008 9:50 AM
Unfortunately, the AP contract stipulates you have to give them TWO YEARS notice if you want to cancel AP service. So newspapers (and probably that includes Yahoo) are stuck with them.
Posted by: Michael57 | August 29, 2008 11:36 AM
But editors can stop running AP election coverage.
Posted by: LJP | August 29, 2008 9:33 PM
The ultimate source for all this is pretty obvious:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/murdoch-zell-appointed-to_n_96566.html
The AP has become the de facto Fox News Wire.
Posted by: Bill in Chicago | August 30, 2008 12:00 AM