However, instead of releasing the videos and documents themselves, the AP gives a bias and outright false and ignorant analysis of said supposed documents (again, to see how terrible the article is - see Powerline).
Upon cruising through the article myself I check on the AP photo slide show, and found this:
With this caption:
This 02 September 2005 file photo shows a the Marine One helicopter carrying US President George W. Bush over the Superdome in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Bush is facing fresh controversy over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, as new video footage surfaced showing him and other top officials being warned about the storm's potential devastation.
What? What fresh controversy? I haven't heard anything!
Just to be clear on what happened here:
The AP acquired classified government documents (maybe) from an illegal source and instead of releasing them gave a biased summary that does its best to attack the Bush Administration. It then places pictures on its website referring to the "controversy" that is now "fresh" evidently created by its own silly story.
The old media at work.
2 comments:
If the documents weren't released (and therefore by definition you don't know what they contained), how do you know the report was biased? A case of the new media at work, perhaps?
Nick,
The reason for calling the article biased was due to the fact it brought up no new information and had a number of factual errors (as shown in the linked-to Powerline post.)
Also, due to the article's obvious attempt to start its own "controversy" and the recent barrage of sourceless and documentless stories repeated by the media I felt this was an example of the failure of the traditional anonymous-source media.
Post a Comment