11 January, 2007

Associated Historians (with an agenda?)

I don't want to be one of those reactive types who just says, "I don't trust a single thing the MSM says. But I keep running into things like this. My heart dropped when I saw the following by the AP (published only seven minutes ago) under the headline "Poll: Americans oppose Iraq troop surge:"

Americans overwhelmingly oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll that serves as a strong repudiation of President Bush's plan to send another 21,500 troops.

...Sixty percent, meanwhile, think it is unlikely that a stable, democratic Iraqi government will be established.

Fully 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops, and a like number don't think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there.

But then I read this line, the middle of the fourth paragraph of the article:

The telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops.

They include this little fig leaf: "News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush wanted to boost U.S. forces in Iraq." Published the morning after his speech but not encompassing it, it's technically worthless as anything more than a historical footnote. Yeah, that makes the poll legitimate current news. Not! The game is, the media gets to frame what's in Bush's speech ahead of time, takes polls on it before he delivers it, then reports the results of the poll after he gives the speech. Talk about "manufacturing" news!

Jules Crittenden reported this morning:

I found it somewhat telling that as I drove home around 11 p.m., the BBC's report on public radio was more relevant and balanced than what the Associated Press had sent over. The AP was actually breaking left of the BBC.

So, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I just wish I could stop being so disappointed...