The Associated Press over the past decade and the internet browsing service Yahoo, which broadcasts AP news and opinion pieces are guilty of the yellowest of journalism  and have been for quite some time.  In the case of the AP the constant fact of their craven kowtowing to liberal interests was brought to a head by their decision to broadcast the dying moments of Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard of New Portland, Maine after his unit was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan.  The AP which has willfully hid the simple truth about the present financial crisis (that the liberals' mortgage-guarantee laws in 1998 created the situation and overlooked the efforts of Bush and Republicans to undo the law) and willfuly propagated the myth that the Bush adminstration was 100% guilty, reports all stories from behind a political filtering screen that serves to obfuscate truth and decency at every turn.

IF the AP had run this item ANONYMOUSLY, without deliberately running the risk of traumatizing the young man’s family, friends and associates . . . it still would have been improper.   Why? Because the AP through its willingness to cover only one side of the story for over a decade has NOT EARNED the right to get away with that kind of raw journalism. The question immediately springs to mind, why was this story run? In this case the answer was as “an anti-war piece” and as a sop to the AP's liberal conscience. This was not an instance of deep, up-close journalism but of exploitation and once again showing a slanted picture of the world.  IF the AP was fair and IF they had run the story anonymously, the viewer would hate the truth of the story, but since the AP is NOT a fair organization, one just hates the AP even more for their lack of fairness, their abusive unconcern with truth and balance and their misuse of the journalistic prerogatives.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,