I'm sorry. I can't sit by on this one.
If you haven't read droogie6655321's recommended diary, head over there and catch up on what has transpired since Droogie published yesterday's diary (since deleted) about the AP.
Much, much more over the fold.
So let's remember what this all started with. It started with an outcry, generally, from the Daily Kos community over AP reporter Ron Fournier's biased reporting. And believe me - Daily Kos and its registered users are not the only ones taking note of Fournier's "coverage" - Via CBS News Online:
(Political Animal) FOURNIER IS AT IT AGAIN.... The latest piece from Ron Fournier, the AP's Washington bureau chief and the man responsible for directing the wire service's coverage of the presidential campaign, on Joe Biden joining the Democratic ticket, is drawing a fair amount of attention this morning. More importantly, McCain campaign staffers are pushing it fairly aggressively to other reporters, in large part because it mirrors the Republican line with minimal variation.
::snip::
Second, in context, Fournier's objectivity covering the presidential race continues to look shaky. We are, after all, talking about a journalist who, as recently as last year, considered working for the McCain campaign.
Before Ron Fournier returned to The Associated Press in March 2007, the veteran political reporter had another professional suitor: John McCain's presidential campaign.In October 2006, the McCain team approached Fournier about joining the fledgling operation, according to a source with knowledge of the talks. In the months that followed, said a source, Fournier spoke about the job possibility with members of McCain's inner circle, including political aides Mark Salter, John Weaver and Rick Davis.
The initial criticisms of Fournier are not some wild, blog-spun melodrama. The concerns are legitimate. Even more illuminating is what the AP says about itself:
Facts
The Associated Press is the backbone of the world's information system serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers with coverage in all media and news in all formats. It is the largest and oldest news organization in the world, serving as a source of news, photos, graphics, audio and video.
AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed. AP operates as a not-for-profit cooperative with more than 4,000 employees working in more than 240 worldwide bureaus. AP is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.
My emphasis exclusively added on my behalf only. Please note the use of "objectivity" and "balanced" in their own description. For the record, THAT is the issue we have with the AP. It's also worth noting that Droogie6655321 isn't the only Daily Kos diarist to express outrage at Fournier's coverage. See here for a list of recent diaries tagged with "Associated Press". Notable among those are BarbinMD's two front page posts on the AP (here and here), and GrannyDoc's recommended diary on the same subject.
So what does the AP do? Do they release a statement defending Fournier's "reporting"? No. They access Droogie's diary from yesterday - which had an incorrect claim that is and was totally ancillary to the issue we have with the AP overall - and Google around on what little information Droogie provided about him/herself. Through that Googling, they found Droogie's real name and place of employment. In the process of seeking to correct the one ancillary error, they contacted not only Droogie but also Droogie's employer.
I went back through Droogie's diary history. Nowhere does Droogie associate him/herself with his/her place of employment and nowhere does Droogie indicate that s/he is writing on behalf of said place of employment.
Let me put it this way: it seems to me that it's HIGHLY unethical for anyone to target MY EMPLOYER for statements that I have made outside of my employment with that employer. A relevant example: let's say I'm canvassing for Barack Obama (which I do) - and let's say I knock on the door of someone who works for a company that competes with my employer (which is a possibility, though I try to avoid canvassing in areas where it is MORE likely). If that person then contacted my employer and indicated that they were going to use my canvassing activities against my employer as we compete with the other company for government business, my company's legal department would tell them to go take a hike. How I volunteer on my own time and my own behalf is not an issue with which my employer would concern itself.
Yet the AP has tried to make it an issue with Droogie's employer.
I'm not necessarily suggesting specific action - frankly, GrannyDoc's diary linked above and a bunch of others at the tag link provided previously make excellent suggestions about how you can register your displeasure with Fournier's "reporting" on behalf of the AP. Frankly, those actions were recommended to address the REAL CORE of the issue - Fournier's biased reporting - in a constructive manner. But the fact that the AP chose to strike back at an individual writing on his/her own behalf by engaging his/her employer is just disgusting.
If you haven't already taken specific action related to the real, original issue (and one that remains) with the AP, this should serve as some incentive to do so.
FOR THE RECORD: Droogie does NOT know that I planned to write this diary nor did I suggest to him/her that s/he review it prior to its posting. FURTHER STILL - I have written this SOLELY on my own behalf and not on behalf of my employer or any other person.
Update [2008-8-26 20:3:43 by RenaRF]: Did anyone check out the link to the AP's Board of Directors, which I linked (as they did also) from their "about" page?? A veritable who's who of the print media industry. Many have the health and well-being of their own newspapers to worry about. Just sayin'.
Update [2008-8-26 22:23:34 by RenaRF]: I need to clarify. My suggestion here is that you go to GrannyDoc's diary (linked early in mine) and implement the suggestions she made. Those suggestions have NOTHING to do with Droogie. I would suggest you don't reference Droogie or allude to Droogie. Because really - what we want to address here is the ORIGINAL issue of biased reporting on the part of AP reporters generally and Ron Fournier specifically. Let's not make this a shitstorm that makes more trouble for Droogie, ok??