[leadpenny]

Take your business elsewhere? Where? AP is ubiquitous.

No organization is perfect, especially one as big as AP. I'm certain they have internal mechanisms for correcting mistakes and improving accuracy, but, for me, I'll take it raw.

And yes, I had to check the spelling and confirm the definition of ubiquitous.

[marktwain]

Their problem integral to the structure of the organization. They probably cannot be reformed. They need to be replaced. As demand for a less agenda driven, biased source of news increases, a way to replace them will be found.

[FReepaholic]

...Take your business elsewhere? Where?...

You're right. There's not many choices.

You've got Reuters, and we saw how biased they are during the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

And you've got United Press International. They're owned by the Moonies.

[Condor51]

***Take your business elsewhere? Where? AP is ubiquitous.***

Yep and besides Ass Press being ubiquitous, they're basically a monopoly now.

UPI is almost non existent, a shell of its former self. Rooter's HQ is in London and they hate America. AFP, fugetaboutit - they're frogs and hate America too. Plus all the major newspapers pretty much shut down their Foreign Bureaus and wire services to nothing. I 'believe' the NY Slimes is the only one remaining with anything resembling a 'full staff'.

Maybe we should let Al Jazeera open here?
It would provide balance for the biased AP (semi joking. and I mean 'semi').

[MNJohnnie]

Actually that is the whole problem. Their supposed "correcting" device do not work anymore. For example, how many people know a a local Iraqi AP stringer. In other words the source AP uses to go out and "gather" the "news" for them in Iraq was arrested and jailed for his ties to the Terrorists?

How about all the erroneous and fraudulent reporting about Israel and Lebanon in August? All the utter garbage about Haditha?


I agree better they give it to us raw. We don't need them as a filter since they distort more then then they report./p>