Is the U.S. Casualty Rate Higher Because of the AP?

Townhall.com ^ | Dec 8, 2005 | Todd Manzi

[sgtbono2002]

The truth is that AP is no worse than all the others in the MSM, they are all guilty, and add the democrat party into that equation.

[longtermmemmory]

100% AP has DIRECTLY caused death.

That lunatic nobel prize speech is getting LONG airplay in the european news media.


The USA is a target of those who resent the USA's strength.

[The Toll]

Agreed, the media has performed CPR on the so called "insurgency" numerous times. That is why winning this will be difficult, for example, the UK has been a settled nation for quite some time now and someone still managed to bomb the tube. When and if we decide to leave Iraq the media will cover the first guy that throws a firecracker out of his car window as the mastermind behind the humiliating American defeat. Count on it!

[Coldwater Creek]

DITTO !!!!!!!!!!!

[Berlin_Freeper]

The AP have both American and Iraqi blood on their hands, and along with many prominent Democrat politicians and celebrities are responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq because they give encouragement to the Terrorists by constantly high lighting the terrorist attacks and over stating their effectiveness, while never once giving due mention of the positive work the Coalition has done for both Iraq and the Middle East.

Show me a SINGLE news story from AP that focuses on improvements in Iraq, it can't be done not because there are none but because AP has a political agenda that is more important to them then anything else. AP and company most definitely have blood on their hands, that is not even a questionable.

[Fielding]

100% AP has DIRECTLY caused death

I believe that reliance on the AP as a news source is causing the death of the print media. I have several friends (my wife for one) who dropped daily delivery of the local paper. They all see the syndicated news as BS. "Al-Media"

[sandistained]

I'm sorry-- am I the only conservative who thinks this type of article is plain ridiculous? On the one hand, of course there has been a flourishing of anti-war sentiment being expressed within the media. It's taken them quite a long time for the media to get the courage to report the message of the anti-war crowd. The anti-war people were there long before the Dems started making an issue of it, and there was little coverage of their attempts to express their opinions. Now that those in Congress are piping up, the AP is a little more liberated to print about the opposition to the war. They're in the business of *selling* news to a buying public. They weren't selling an anti-war message when there was the perception that everybody was lock-step in line behind the president.

But to suggest that the AP and the Dems "are costing lives with their rhetoric" is quite the rhetorical feat in itself. By implication, isn't Bush's rhetoric about "staying the course" also costing lives, in a more direct manner?

If the terrorists are as whacko as some portray them, they will continue fighting no matter if they perceive they can win or not. Suicide bombing is inherently a losing strategy, as is fighting such an equipped military force as the US. They will continue fighting and dying in unfathomable numbers, and will take the rest of the Iraqi population with them as collateral damage, no matter what the AP does.

For years during Vietnam before the media turned on the cause, they still ferociously fought what they thought was an imperialist invasion, and millions died in the process. No amount of rhetoric of freedom and democracy could have possibly changed that.

I don't care what Cindy Sheehan says. If anyone is actually listening to her opportunism for fame, or for that matter, Bush's same tired speeches about the torch of freedom, we have a bigger problem of intellectual creativity on our hands. The truth of the matter is, months and months later, the Iraqi forces are still not ready to fight, and what does that say about our efforts? How long will this last? How long before we develop a plan B?

[Landru]

"I asked Scott Bosley, the executive director of American Society of Newspaper Editors, what he thought about the Associated Press’ antiwar bias. Bosely’s opinion: 'The AP is not biased. It covers stories episodically, attempting to put them in context.'"

Oh geshhhh.
Totally hopeless.
Just one more reason the Associated Quislings have their proverbial plug pulled asap, my friend.

To the direct question on whether or not the AP's antiwat bias has -- & *is* -- contributing to the U.S. casualty rate?
A resounding YES.

Y'know, bert?
The Islamofacists *posing* as terrorists, they read the AP's bile just as everyone else so just where does everyone think the maniacs get their strategy?

The AP needs to be "squared-up", but-good.

...once & for finally.

[rock_lobsta]

Looking at recent AP headlines on keywords "Iraq Improvement". Here's the most common results.

Iraq security needs improvement
(Insurgent) Bombs getting more sophisticated.
9/11 Commission blames Bush administration.

No question that the AP is reporting what fits the 'Vietnam' scenario. Their goal is to facilitate an American defeat for the political gain of the liberal democrats. By following this agenda, they are aiding the terrorists that are killing our soldiers and civilians.

There is a word that describes these actions. The word is treason.

[starbase]

The truth is that AP is no worse than all the others in the MSM

In my personal opinion the AP IS very much the worst. I've found I can almost never read anything they write that isn't clearly slanted to the far left. I generally close the browser window as soon as I see "AP", unless I want to know what the left-wing line on something is.

[sgtbono2002]

Of course the AP is the source for many news outlets, but the Washington Post is clearly just as bad as AP and I could name other papers as bad as Wapo.