HOWEVER, it's is missing the actual "why." The big story.
The AP, And Why The Press Has Trouble Admitting Its Clinton Mistakes
... As the AP investigation began to crumble last week, I noted that the wire service joined a dubious list of news outlets that have gotten burned chasing bogus Clinton ‘scandal’ stories over the years. And now we’re seeing the postscript to that sad tradition: News outlets which then refuse to admit they botched their Clinton ‘scandal’ stories. There’s a stubborn refusal to clean up their own mess.
For years, The New York Times has refused to acknowledge its rampantly misleading Whitewater coverage from the 1990s, as well as its overall breathless pursuit of Clinton ‘scandal’ stories back then.
Meanwhile, when CBS’ Lara Logan reported a botched Benghazi investigation on 60 Minutes, featuring a bogus “eyewitness” to the terror attack, the network never released a full explanation for how such an obviously flawed report was ever allowed to air. Instead, the network ordered a minimal internal review, released a two-page summary and Logan and a producer took a leave of absence from the program.
By contrast, when CBS faced conservative outrage after airing a flawed report about President Bush's Vietnam War record in 2004, the network appointed former Republican attorney general Richard Thornburgh, to investigate. Thornburgh’s review panel worked for three months, interviewed 66 people, and issued an-often scathing 224-page report. ...
These are only really major examples, of course. We see dozens in daily practice if we look for them. AP blanketed America with a bogus election map in August but didn't excite the anger of the Foundation coverage because it included a more realistic, if canted, map in the article. A piece on the Trump kids was withdrawn, though, because it was...astonishingly flattering. This IS the AP, after all...
= new reply since forum marked as read
