Your Liberal Media Being Obviously Liberal

Matt Apuzzo from the AP wrote up a fact-check of President Clinton’s speech and included this gigantic steaming bucket of shitola:

CLINTON: “Their campaign pollster said, ‘We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.’ Now that is true. I couldn’t have said it better myself — I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad.”

THE FACTS: Clinton, who famously finger-wagged a denial on national television about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky and was subsequently impeached in the House on a perjury charge, has had his own uncomfortable moments over telling the truth. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” Clinton told television viewers. Later, after he was forced to testify to a grand jury, Clinton said his statements were “legally accurate” but also allowed that he “misled people, including even my wife.”

What the effing hell is that? The first part has ZERO to do with the second part. And somehow Romney ignoring fact-checkers has something to do with Monica Lewinsky? In what universe?

This is the Associated Press — how did such a chunk of inappropriate, nonsensical hack writing get past the editors?

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Election 2012 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • i_a_c

    More “both sides” pablum from your Very Serious Media. We should have known that after Romney/Ryan’s gratuitous lie-fest that the Villagers would be digging deep to pretend that both sides are the same.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    It gets worse. President Clinton’s claim that President Obama has been conciliatory, has tried to work with Republicans, &c., is rebutted/debunked by the fact that Obama chose Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

    That’s it.

    No specific examples of anything Obama or Emanuel atually did or said, just the very existence of Emanuel and his “reputation” is enough to prove that Obama has been the hyper-partisan obstructor-in-chief, refused to compromise on anything, and dedicated his entire existence to making sure Republicans don’t get re-elected.

    The entire piece is transparent GOP-partisan hackery.

    • stacib23

      If I took a public asskicking like the Republicans did when Obama went to discuss healthcare, I would say he didn’t play well with others, too. LOL

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Oh, man, that was awesome. The Obama campaign should be running that video on a continuous loop on its website.

        I would love nothing more than to watch Obama “debate” a room full of Republicans every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

  • zirgar

    Well, yeah it works because, well, you know, the media is, like, giving Mitt Romney a metaphorical blowjob by allowing him to get away with all his lying and shit. So, yeah, Clinton–penis!

  • eclecticbrotha

    [This is the Associated Press — how did such a chunk of inappropriate, nonsensical hack writing get past the editors?]

    The first part of the sentence answers the question in the second part.

    • rob black

      Absolutely. I can smell an A.P. political article without seeing the byline in about 1 paragraph. Mcclatchy is the only non-hack service left. A.P is the David Brooks of wire.

  • http://twitter.com/SugaRazor Razor

    This is exactly what Chez predicted: the very serious Beltway media forcing balance after growing a pair and actually reporting that Paul Ryan lied, lied, lied.

  • Ellen Kuhlmann

    They couldn’t find one lie in the speech, so they went back to the 90’s. This is the type of attack that says, if someone lies once, they’re untrustworthy, which is nonsense. If that’s all they have on Bill, great. Its not like anyone alive doesn’t know about the Lewinsky affair.

    • incredulous72

      And to the lying point, I could see if it were matters of domestic or national security that the man lied about, but what he was impeached for was a completely private matter that should never have made its way into the public discourse to begin with.

      The republicans are hypocritical, pathetic, puritan in name only . . .

      . . . assholes. I can’t find any other way to describe them other than that.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    I would expect crap like that from Reuters but AP? Yeah that’s not typical and it is really crappy.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      The AP has a conservative bias.

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        [comment deleted] wasn’t that important :)

  • http://mdblanche.myopenid.com/ mdblanche

    Um, wow. Non sequitur, ad hominem, tu quoque, ad nauseam…

  • SlapFat

    Every so often (even more as of late it seems) I notice the Associated Press will run articles carrying a similar tone to the one you referenced. I’d describe it as kind of a jaded, cynical, somewhat oblivious theme where, for whatever reason, they seem agitated at whatever they are reporting on.

    There was an article they ran a little while back mocking the idea that leaving Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan would save money. It was a really strange piece. I’m not sure if they just get ticked off or wanna feel like journalistic hard-asses of some sort but it always comes off as bad reporting.

    Anyway, between this and NPR’s attempts to not appear “liberal” by running depressing and/or dismissive articles on the Obama administration every day I have to say I’m not impressed with the media’s sudden obsession with acting like a sophomoric teenager.

    Call it out when you see it so the garbage-level of reporting can be exposed for what it is: journalists engaging in false equivalence.

    • muselet

      It’s not just the AP.

      Ezra Klein:

      As a general point, I think there’s a peculiar dynamic that affects the deficit-reduction conversation in Washington: People prefer “tough” cuts to cuts they think are easy (though the cuts in question are rarely tough on the people analyzing them). So they give a lot more credit to, say, raising the Medicare eligibility age, as that hurts seniors, than to officially drawing down the war spending, or cutting interest payments, or banking the results of a deal. But the deficit doesn’t care how much the cuts hurt. It’s all about the bottom-line number.

      Kevin Drum, in response:

      It’s sort of pathological, really. If you save money, you save money. Who cares if you go after the low-hanging fruit first? Nobody should, and yet they do. If your proposed savings aren’t something that’s likely to concretely hurt someone, they’re somehow unserious. Raising the Medicare eligibility age is a real cut; reducing reimbursements to hospitals isn’t. Block-granting Medicaid is a real cut; ending the war in Afghanistan isn’t. Slashing NIH funding is a real cut; reinstating PAYGO isn’t.

      They’re trying hard to become Serious People Who Are Serious (or, as I prefer to call them, pretentious morons—Villagers, if I’m trying to be polite for some reason).

      –alopecia

  • gescove

    Editors? We don’ need no steenking editors.!

  • villemar

    Why is Matt Apuzzo so obsessed with Clinton’s penis?