Actually, it's meant to be a short feature, achancesw. It opens the arts preview, and we only had 1.5 pages for it, and thus focused on these wonderful young folks. But we are already planning a longer story about the film industry. If you have specific ideas or sources to suggest, feel free to write [email protected].
Now, [New York Magazine][1] is piling on the Associated Press. They do have a point about what "fact" was being checked and how Lewinsky history somehow refuted it. And it's not like everyone doesn't know that. It really does smile like a poor attempt at false equivalency that's backfiring on AP. But that history is Clinton's burden to bear. Shoulda thought about it. So I'm still Switzerland on it.
Still, Clinton nailed the policy history with only slight exaggerations, it seems. And getting facts and the need for "arithmetic" out there is a very good thing.
Politico didn't even mention Barbour's infamous and race-baiting jab at Head Start children and their mothers in 2003. Here's [one reference to it][1]. The quote itself:
> "Headstart is a godsend for Mississippi. Some of those kids in it would be better off sitting up on a piano bench in a whorehouse than where they are now."
Of course, our resident satirist Ken Stiggers [had his own take on it][2], as [did the racists at Stormfront: White Pride Worldwide.][3]
Huffington Post [now has a piece up about AP defending its decision][1] to use Lewinsky in their factcheck of Clinton's speech last night. I don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other than it smells like AP was doing a bit of predictable false equivalency.
But Clinton did that crap then, and it's part of his legacy, despite his near-brilliance on policy and speaking. That history doesn't take away anything from this speech and its remarkable effect of educating people on issues that he knows like the back of his hand.
Thanks for linking to the same AP story we have up that ran on Yahoo. Not sure why you're saying to RT since we already have it up though. Bit confused.
Also, Huffington Post [now has a piece up about AP defending its decision][1] to use Lewinsky in their factcheck of Clinton's speech last night. I don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other than it smells like AP was doing a bit of predictable false equivalency.
But Clinton did that crap then, and it's part of his legacy, despite his near-brilliance on policy and speaking. That history doesn't take away anything from this speech and its remarkable effect of educating people on issues that he knows like the back of his hand.
It's hard to criticize using "rock" in the headline when it's in the "lede"--and I can assure you that most of our readers are more like to say that something "rocked" than that it was "rousing." ;-) And even AP is jazzing up headlines, ledes and the like -- probably to appeal to younger readers, especially on social media.
As for conspiracy, you kind of have a history of comments that provide context for how we react to you. If I recall correctly, you often come here to complain about the JFP and our reporting rather than discuss the issue we're reporting.
Not hiding anything. That's why I answered in detail. It was a teachable moment. ;-)
FWIW, here is [a link to the liberal blog Daily Kos][1] complaining about the AP factcheck.
I'm of two minds on it: First, I'm on the record as no fan of Clinton's sexual idiocy when he was in office, and actually supported his impeachment, based on his lies and obstructions. So, I see the hypocrisy in his calling out factcheckers, considering his lies about Lewinsky. Does that belong in a factcheck of his last night? Maybe, maybe not.
Otherwise, I think this AP factcheck is rather slight -- which really indicates to me that they didn't find many inaccurate facts and they were working hard at the false equivalency that many of us believe infect mainstream media. Why? Because they found so much unfactual about Ryan's speech, and to a slightly lesser degree, Romney's. I don't lay the blame for false equivalency at AP's feet: At this point, it's an American tradition, and if they don't do it, the far-right starts screaming about them being "liberal media." So I see the spot they're in.
Again, here is the [Factcheck.org piece][2] that perhaps does a better job factchecking the details. And [Politifact is doing a good job, too, about both sides.][3]
Let's hope that Obama gets a good score tonight for being factual--and that AP doesn't go looking for ways to tar him to make their reports "even" if they don't deserve to be.
Robbie, JFP editors choose the stories we're going to run and either use the suggested headline or do one of our own, just as with all AP members.
You seem to be implying some big conspiracy: I can tell you that we pick stories we believe our readers will be interested in, whether we agree with them or not, and we choose many that we're surprised to see other outlets in the state not choosing, frankly. The AP collection is much better than one might assume, for instance, just by reading The Clarion-Ledger, which is also filling a lot of its print pages with AP. (We're not putting AP in print; we always have more good content than we can fit. We subscribed to AP for online when we heard that The Clarion-Ledger and The Sun-Herald were going behind paywalls. People sure shouldn't have to pay them to see breaking AP wire stories! And it's really helping be a truly relevant daily news source, in addition to our team's stellar local reporting. And our page views and visits have nearly doubled, thanks both to AP and the amazing new site design.
As for the above headline, it matches AP's first "lede" sentence; I can't imagine why you would complain about it: Clinton did rock the convention. I just looked at the wire, and AP's headline was a bit more blah and possibly less "objective," considering the word "boost": "Clinton boosts Obama in rousing convention speech"
BTW, we change headlines for several reasons: (1) The JFP is our paper, (2) we like dynamic headlines with the active voice, and AP often gives passive ones, (3) it's better for SEO to have an original headline, and AP doesn't always do SEO-friendly headlines and (4) we like to make the headlines more age-friendly for our younger demographic (such as using "rock" in the headline rather than "rousing." But we're careful not to change the meaning.
Finally, I find it interesting that you ask this question under this story instead of the other AP story Ronni posted this morning about the same time, which many Democrats are complaining is unfair to Clinton: [Factchecking Clinton's Speech][1]
My suggestion is to spend less time looking for media booger-bears (to use one of my second-grade words) and spend some time figuring out what is factual and what isn't about what candidates and campaigns are telling you. Facts matter.
donnaladd says...
VILMA!! Maybe I'm ready to forgive now. Y'all better behave, though.
On New Orleans Saints Player Suspensions Vacated, Players Reinstated
Posted 7 September 2012, 6:03 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Actually, it's meant to be a short feature, achancesw. It opens the arts preview, and we only had 1.5 pages for it, and thus focused on these wonderful young folks. But we are already planning a longer story about the film industry. If you have specific ideas or sources to suggest, feel free to write [email protected].
On Raising Filmmakers
Posted 7 September 2012, 12:46 a.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Now, [New York Magazine][1] is piling on the Associated Press. They do have a point about what "fact" was being checked and how Lewinsky history somehow refuted it. And it's not like everyone doesn't know that. It really does smile like a poor attempt at false equivalency that's backfiring on AP. But that history is Clinton's burden to bear. Shoulda thought about it. So I'm still Switzerland on it.
Still, Clinton nailed the policy history with only slight exaggerations, it seems. And getting facts and the need for "arithmetic" out there is a very good thing.
[1]: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/09/fa…
On Factchecking Clinton's Claims
Posted 6 September 2012, 5:47 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Politico didn't even mention Barbour's infamous and race-baiting jab at Head Start children and their mothers in 2003. Here's [one reference to it][1]. The quote itself:
> "Headstart is a godsend for Mississippi. Some of those kids in it would be better off sitting up on a piano bench in a whorehouse than where they are now."
Of course, our resident satirist Ken Stiggers [had his own take on it][2], as [did the racists at Stormfront: White Pride Worldwide.][3]
[1]: http://www.wtok.com/home/headlines/3381…
[2]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…
[3]: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t69772/
On Barbour Folds After 'Poker' Remark
Posted 6 September 2012, 3:43 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Huffington Post [now has a piece up about AP defending its decision][1] to use Lewinsky in their factcheck of Clinton's speech last night. I don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other than it smells like AP was doing a bit of predictable false equivalency.
But Clinton did that crap then, and it's part of his legacy, despite his near-brilliance on policy and speaking. That history doesn't take away anything from this speech and its remarkable effect of educating people on issues that he knows like the back of his hand.
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0…
On Factchecking Clinton's Claims
Posted 6 September 2012, 2:05 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Thanks for linking to the same AP story we have up that ran on Yahoo. Not sure why you're saying to RT since we already have it up though. Bit confused.
Also, Huffington Post [now has a piece up about AP defending its decision][1] to use Lewinsky in their factcheck of Clinton's speech last night. I don't really have an opinion on it one way or the other than it smells like AP was doing a bit of predictable false equivalency.
But Clinton did that crap then, and it's part of his legacy, despite his near-brilliance on policy and speaking. That history doesn't take away anything from this speech and its remarkable effect of educating people on issues that he knows like the back of his hand.
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0…
On Clinton Rocks the DNC with Speech
Posted 6 September 2012, 2:04 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
It's hard to criticize using "rock" in the headline when it's in the "lede"--and I can assure you that most of our readers are more like to say that something "rocked" than that it was "rousing." ;-) And even AP is jazzing up headlines, ledes and the like -- probably to appeal to younger readers, especially on social media.
As for conspiracy, you kind of have a history of comments that provide context for how we react to you. If I recall correctly, you often come here to complain about the JFP and our reporting rather than discuss the issue we're reporting.
Not hiding anything. That's why I answered in detail. It was a teachable moment. ;-)
On Clinton Rocks the DNC with Speech
Posted 6 September 2012, 1:40 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
FWIW, here is [a link to the liberal blog Daily Kos][1] complaining about the AP factcheck.
I'm of two minds on it: First, I'm on the record as no fan of Clinton's sexual idiocy when he was in office, and actually supported his impeachment, based on his lies and obstructions. So, I see the hypocrisy in his calling out factcheckers, considering his lies about Lewinsky. Does that belong in a factcheck of his last night? Maybe, maybe not.
Otherwise, I think this AP factcheck is rather slight -- which really indicates to me that they didn't find many inaccurate facts and they were working hard at the false equivalency that many of us believe infect mainstream media. Why? Because they found so much unfactual about Ryan's speech, and to a slightly lesser degree, Romney's. I don't lay the blame for false equivalency at AP's feet: At this point, it's an American tradition, and if they don't do it, the far-right starts screaming about them being "liberal media." So I see the spot they're in.
Again, here is the [Factcheck.org piece][2] that perhaps does a better job factchecking the details. And [Politifact is doing a good job, too, about both sides.][3]
Let's hope that Obama gets a good score tonight for being factual--and that AP doesn't go looking for ways to tar him to make their reports "even" if they don't deserve to be.
[1]: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/0…
[2]: http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinto…
[3]: http://www.politifact.com/
On Clinton Rocks the DNC with Speech
Posted 6 September 2012, 1:14 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Robbie, JFP editors choose the stories we're going to run and either use the suggested headline or do one of our own, just as with all AP members.
You seem to be implying some big conspiracy: I can tell you that we pick stories we believe our readers will be interested in, whether we agree with them or not, and we choose many that we're surprised to see other outlets in the state not choosing, frankly. The AP collection is much better than one might assume, for instance, just by reading The Clarion-Ledger, which is also filling a lot of its print pages with AP. (We're not putting AP in print; we always have more good content than we can fit. We subscribed to AP for online when we heard that The Clarion-Ledger and The Sun-Herald were going behind paywalls. People sure shouldn't have to pay them to see breaking AP wire stories! And it's really helping be a truly relevant daily news source, in addition to our team's stellar local reporting. And our page views and visits have nearly doubled, thanks both to AP and the amazing new site design.
As for the above headline, it matches AP's first "lede" sentence; I can't imagine why you would complain about it: Clinton did rock the convention. I just looked at the wire, and AP's headline was a bit more blah and possibly less "objective," considering the word "boost": "Clinton boosts Obama in rousing convention speech"
BTW, we change headlines for several reasons: (1) The JFP is our paper, (2) we like dynamic headlines with the active voice, and AP often gives passive ones, (3) it's better for SEO to have an original headline, and AP doesn't always do SEO-friendly headlines and (4) we like to make the headlines more age-friendly for our younger demographic (such as using "rock" in the headline rather than "rousing." But we're careful not to change the meaning.
Finally, I find it interesting that you ask this question under this story instead of the other AP story Ronni posted this morning about the same time, which many Democrats are complaining is unfair to Clinton: [Factchecking Clinton's Speech][1]
My suggestion is to spend less time looking for media booger-bears (to use one of my second-grade words) and spend some time figuring out what is factual and what isn't about what candidates and campaigns are telling you. Facts matter.
[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…
On Clinton Rocks the DNC with Speech
Posted 6 September 2012, 12:49 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Now check out these graphs (and feel free to add your own):
http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photo…
http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photo…
http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photo…
http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photo…
On Factchecking Clinton's Claims
Posted 6 September 2012, 12:16 p.m. Suggest removal