Jerry Falwell, AP bureau chief?

Guest · **Posted:** Sun Aug 18, 2002 4:11 pm

From a story on Saturday's Seattle Mariners-New York Yankees game in Sunday's edition of The Seattle Times:"Flat?" Piniella retorted to an observation
about a team that has lost seven of 12
games and was in danger of losing first
place as well. "We got the (expletive) beat
out of us." From an AP story that moved late Saturday afternoon on the same game:Seattle manager Lou Piniella was asked if his team was flat. â€œFlat?â€ he replied. â€œWe've gotten the stuffing beat out of us."*** Thank God the Associated Christian Press Coalition is out there, steadfastly protecting the virtue and innocence of our delicate readers! Pass the offering plate, and support the NRA.

Rio · **Posted:** Mon Aug 19, 2002 2:39 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Jim Thomsen:
*** Thank God the Associated Christian Press Coalition is out there, steadfastly protecting the virtue and innocence of our delicate readers! Pass the offering plate, and support the NRA.<hr></blockquote>I had to look this up and see for myself whether AP or the Seattle paper changed the quote. The former indeed is guilty as charged; USA Today backs up the "expleted" version.Two thoughts on this.One, once again AP is flouting its own spanking-new stylebook. (See the entry "Quotations in the News.") Is anybody surprised?Two, on the topic of revisionist writing to protect readers' "virtue and innocence," I think you'll find this kind of thing more common among left-of-center journalists, contrary to what the previous post suggests. For instance, I doubt very much it was one of Reuters' Bible-thumping, gun-toting right-wing nuts who decided that calling Osama bin Laden and company "terrorists" was politically incorrect.

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
on the topic of revisionist writing to protect readers' "virtue and innocence," I think you'll find this kind of thing more common among left-of-center journalists, contrary to what the previous post suggests. For instance, I doubt very much it was one of Reuters' Bible-thumping, gun-toting right-wing nuts who decided that calling Osama bin Laden and company "terrorists" was politically incorrect.<hr></blockquote>I wouldn't consider outright altering a quote to be protecting readers in any sense. It is just plain irresponsible journalism that calls into question other "quotes" provided by AP.As far as not calling bin Laden and Co. terrorists, well we don't call George Bush and special operations forces terrorists when they order or participate in the killing of civilians
and destruction of infrastructure. It can hardly be argued this has happened.You can't get a judgment word like terrorist out completely, unfortunately, but at least realize that on the other side of the coin there are millions of people referring to the United States in the same manner.

Rio · **Posted:** Tue Aug 20, 2002 12:25 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by 4Jfan:
As far as not calling bin Laden and Co. terrorists, well we don't call George Bush and special operations forces terrorists when they order or participate in the killing of civilians and destruction of infrastructure. It can hardly be argued this has happened.<hr></blockquote>We don't call George Bush and special operations forces "terrorists" because they don't hijack civilian airliners and fly them into office buildings, killing several thousand people in the process.HTH!

rumymommy · **Joined:** Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 138

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
We don't call George Bush and special operations forces "terrorists" because they don't hijack civilian airliners and fly them into office buildings, killing several thousand people in the process.HTH!<hr></blockquote>No, but they did storm a civilian school in the middle of the night and execute three or four people before figuring out it wasn't the al-qaeda base they thought it was. They called it an "accident." I doubt the families of the victims consider it such.And rather than fly planes into buildings, we fly bombs into them, many times killing civilians. I'm just saying terrorist is a judgment word based on the side of the battle you're on. For American journalism, whose highest goal is pure objectivism, it shouldn't show up at all. But, unfortunately, I imagine I'm fairly alone in that fight.

Guest · **Posted:** Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:27 pm

I've got to agree with 4JFan. History is written by the "winners" (which Americans aren't by a long shot ... and am I even American, given that I was born in Canada? See how sticky this gets from the get-go?). Last week I edited a fascianting story about Iraqi children who are training for potential military conflict as "Saddam's Cubs." These kids, and their adult trainers, genuinely believe that American terrorists hate them and their way or life, and will come to their country and attempt to destroy them for political and ideological advantage. Who are we, as objective journalists, to say their viewpoint isn't valid? I guess we're getting closer to the bigger question of "Can journalists be both patriotic and objective?" Or are we kidding ourselves that we aren't the former by virtue of how and where we were raised, and that we aren't the latter because objectivity in its purest form isn't possible? (And certainly not from the quote-cleansers at AP.)Me, I think they're all full of (expletive) stuffing.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:20 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by 4Jfan:
No, but they did storm a civilian school in the middle of the night and execute three or four people before figuring out it wasn't the al-qaeda base they thought it was. They called it an "accident." I doubt the families of the victims consider it such.And rather than fly planes into buildings, we fly bombs into them, many times killing civilians. I'm just saying terrorist is a judgment word based on the side of the battle you're on. For American journalism, whose highest goal is pure objectivism, it shouldn't show up at all. But, unfortunately, I imagine I'm fairly alone in that fight.<hr></blockquote>I wasn't familiar with the civilian-school story, but if you look at this story objectively, you can't call this a terrorist act. It was an accident. Just because somebody in the world may consider it a terrorist act doesn't mean we have to give this argument the same moral weight as those that address real terrorist acts.The United States often dropped bombs on buildings killing civilians not only recently, but also during World War II and the Korean War. In those past conflicts, should our journalistic forebears not have called the evil, aggressive instigators of those respective wars what they were? By your reasoning, journalists then couldn't make such judgments because the Nazis and North Koreans wouldn't have seen it that way.Finally, just to give you a hard time: If your goal as a journalist really is "pure objectivism," I imagine you are fairly alone in that fight. Personally, I strive for objectivity instead. :D

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:32 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Jim Thomsen:
I've got to agree with 4JFan. History is written by the "winners" (which Americans aren't by a long shot ... and am I even American, given that I was born in Canada? See how sticky this gets from the get-go?). Last week I edited a fascianting story about Iraqi children who are training for potential military conflict as "Saddam's Cubs." These kids, and their adult trainers, genuinely believe that American terrorists hate them and their way or life, and will come to their country and attempt to destroy them for political and ideological advantage. Who are we, as objective journalists, to say their viewpoint isn't valid? I guess we're getting closer to the bigger question of "Can journalists be both patriotic and objective?" Or are we kidding ourselves that we aren't the former by virtue of how and where we were raised, and that we aren't the latter because objectivity in its purest form isn't possible? (And certainly not from the quote-cleansers at AP.)Me, I think they're all full of (expletive) stuffing.<hr></blockquote>Good question about "Saddam's Cubs." In this case, we as objective journalists don't
need to say the viewpoint isn't valid. Just report and edit the "facts" as the Iraqis present it, and let people make up their own minds. Journalists need not and should not dictate to the readers how out of step with reality such a school is. The facts speak for themselves - as they should in all stories.You ask: "Who are we, as objective journalists, to say their viewpoint isn't valid?" Just because we can write and edit such stories objectively, though, doesn't mean we can and should turn off our brains. I could edit such a story objectively, but, like you, I think they're all full of "stuffing." :)

KfitzR · **Posted:** Wed Aug 21, 2002 12:13 pm

Actually I am with 4Jfan and Jim Thomsen on this. And this is definitely from a Canadian perspective. If people cannot see and understand how their own acts are perceived by their adversaries, they will never be able to resolve their differences. The fact that U.S. actions can reasonably seen as terrorist by the Iraqi children means that the U.S. should take a look at its actions.
While flying planes into buildings is in a league of its own for horror, there are many places on this globe where the locals feel they have a legitimate peeve agains the actions of the U.S. And if more American citizens could understand how their nation's actions are perceived abroad, then there would more impetus for changing actions to change perceptions, leading potentially to greater peace in the world.
Ever the optimist.

dmfugitive · **Posted:** Wed Aug 21, 2002 5:12 pm

At the risk of landing on the wrong side of this ridiculous argument, I have to agree with Piniella: The M's got the s--t kicked out of them.

Testy Copy Editors

Jerry Falwell, AP bureau chief?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links