OT: My pals at the Associated Press

[Dutch]

More Marines may be needed in terror war
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 8 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061123/...aq_afghanistan

The phrase in question is "terror". The polar opposite of "terror" as used by the USA has been "anti-terror". That's interesting in and of itself.

But wasn't it the Associated Press that banned the word "terrorist" from it's news stories soon after the US announced the overal goal of "Global War Against Terror"? They did. (I think Reuters was first, but the AP followed closely behind).

The rationale was that the word "terrorist" was too judgemental as it was all-inclusive to suicide bombers, bomb planters, assassins, death squads, beheaders, hostage takers, and ransomers.

But when the USA announces it is fighting a war against terror, the same journalists say we need more marines to fight our terror war. I know they can always use the excuse of "brevity", but it isn't that hard to throw in "anti-" before terror or simply for non-judgemental purposes (as they offer the terrorists) simply refer to it as war, or conflict. Sounds fair to both the US and the terrorists.

It sells, I'll give them that. But their actions in order to just make money have destroyed my faith in their ability to tell me the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And I don't ask for the press to be banned or forced to a certain path of news-making, but I do insist that they hold themselves to a higher standard than they are. When the AP and Reuters simply become the anti-Limbaugh or the pro-Stephanopolis, then "journalism" will be completely destroyed.

And that's today's rant about the Associated Press.

EDIT: Fixed for accuracy in reporting.

[Chubby]

Wow I'm stunned you don't like the AP.

Almost as stunned as I am when I see most sane people don't buy a word Fox News says.

[John Galt]

I hate it when they call the War on Drugs the Drug War too. Damned pinko commie newspapers.

[cartman]

Yeah, why have our history books lied to us about the Civil War? There was nothing civil about it. What's that you say, England had a Civil War as well? Wow, I never would have guessed.

This is beyond constructive criticism, it is past nitpicking, and borders on the obsessive.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, why have our history books lied to us about the Civil War? There was nothing civil about it.

Axl Rose?

[sterlingice]

Wait? A weekly post from Dutch about the AP?

SI

[jeff061]

I think Dutch is a slightly less talented version of Colbert.

[kcchief19]

I'm with Dutch. It's not the same thing. For example, if I referred to Fox News' coverage of its War on Christmas as the Christmas War, that makes no sense. The War on Christmas is all about those Hollywood liberals and retailers being anti-Christmas, and it should be called the anti-Christmas War.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, why have our history books lied to us about the Civil War? There was nothing civil about it. What's that you say, England had a Civil War as well? Wow, I never would have guessed.

Ironically, "War of the Roses" actually sounds a lot more civil than "Civil War".

[sabotai]

dola,

"We support your war of terror."

[cartman]

I agree that "Terror War" sounds awkward compared to "War on Terror" or "Anti-Terror War", but to suggest that its use in this headline is part of a conspiracy to discredit Limbaugh, Fox News, and the current administration is just too much of a stretch for me to accept.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I think Dutch is a slightly less talented version of Colbert.

"slightly"?

[jeff061]

Well, he gives Colbert a run for his money when it comes to never dropping his act.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Well, he gives Colbert a run for his money when it comes to never dropping his act.

Colbert rings a bell, but I'm not sure who he is. Does he complain about the lack of accuracy with the AP as well? If so, in his defense, I don't see where the AP would give him much chance for pause.

[SackAttack]

I think the problem is you're spending too much time with the Associate Press and not enough with the Associated Press, Dutch.

Two entirely different news organizations.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

I agree that "Terror War" sounds awkward compared to "War on Terror" or "Anti-Terror War", but to suggest that its use in this headline is part of a conspiracy to discredit Limbaugh, Fox News, and the current administration is just too much of a stretch for me to accept.

Well, thanks for acknowledging that much.

But their reason for using "terror war" would logically be the same reason they won't use the word "terrorist". "Accuracy in reporting" would obviously be at conflict here.

[timmynausea]

Dutch has the War on Terror. Colbert has the War on Bears.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

But their reason for using "terror war" would logically be the same reason they won't use the word "terrorist". "Accuracy in reporting" would obviously be at conflict here.

Outside of this example, how often have they used "Terror War"? I don't scour the AP Headlines as much as you do, so I can't say if this is an isolated instance or part of a well-coordinated plan to change the way of describing the war in a liberal slant.

As for the "accuracy in reporting" part, what part of the ensuing article is inaccurate? An awkwardly worded headline does not equal inaccurate reporting, which is what you seem to suggest.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Outside of this example, how often have they used "Terror War"? I don't scour the AP Headlines as much as you do, so I can't say if this is an isolated instance or part of a well-coordinated plan to change the way of describing the war in a liberal slant.

As for the "accuracy in reporting" part, what part of the ensuing article is inaccurate? An awkwardly worded headline does not equal inaccurate reporting, which is what you seem to suggest.

It's only the second time I've seen it, but it bothered me enough the first time, that I couldn't let it slide the second time. I don't actually "scour" for innacuracies, they just kind of appear. I'm sure it's much like the bias left-wingers see on Fox News.

As for "accuracy in reporting", I wouldn't champion the idea that the headline has no need for accuracy and the focus should be on the ensuing article. I would disagree.

[John Galt]

Since no one paid attention to my War on Drugs analogy (which seems pretty spot on to me), let's look at all of the newspapers that happen to have used "terror war" in their headlines.

Bastion of liberalism, the Washington Times had this headline "Gates likely to sustain terror war."

In an editorial ripping New York Times coverage, the Washington Times also used this headline: "Flawed terror war reports."

Bubba's news source of record titled a crazy editorial against liberals "West losing terror war by capitulating to Islam."

You can also find all sorts of very far right news sources like the American Enterprise Institute and Front Page Magazine using the term in their articles.

Strangely, in my google news search of the term "terror war," I didn't see any recent news items that used the phrase from obviously liberal sources (or even the NYT and Washington Post).

Yeah, it's a liberal conspiracy alright.

[John Galt]

dola,

And when you search for "anti-terror" war, you have very few articles, and none from right wing sources. Instead, you find a student newspaper, the People's Daily in China, and the Washington Post.

But don't let the facts get in the way.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Yeah, it's a liberal conspiracy alright.

Alright, you have convinced me, John. Thinking it was a liberal bias seems to be my mistake.

[Raiders Army]

I didn't get my newspaper until about 9 AM this morning. Fucking AP!!!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Alright, you have convinced me, John. Thinking it was a liberal bias seems to be my mistake.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't mind having these conversations. If you can convince me I'm wrong, with an honest effort, I'll always accept that. It requires some effort, but a fair effort should not go unrewarded if it's logic is fair. I think it's wrong that the articles title says more marines needed for terror war. But I admit, after shown links, I was mistaken in thinking that only certain kinds of people would call it that.

You win some and you lose some, I'm sure I'll post something next week to make up for it.