Well, the article discusses a debate that doesn't take place for another 40 minutes. And it's talking about that debate in the past tense. They've already written the story.
Nope, no bias there.
Update: Welcome Instapundit, NewsAlert, and HotAir readers!
16 comments:
It's the press.
They are in the tank for the liberals.
And this surprises you, why?
It surprises me because they used to try to hide it.
From sarahbarracuda.com,
"AP reports Palin speech before it happens"
Posted by Barracuda Fan on September 03, 2008
"Here’s the AP’s take on Palin’s speech, posted before she has actually given it. If only they’d told me what I’m going to think of it, then I wouldn’t have to watch."
If you read the article you find that the reason why the past tense appears is because the article is badly written. This is not about bias or a premature post-mortem. It's about a different failing of the MSM: poorly educated writers.
Bizarre. Past tense, but there aren't any made up conclusions about the debate. To me it seems to signifies journalistic incompetence.
Reminds me of a small town sports writer in Kentucky who used to write up high school football games before the games were played. He would make a few alterations for accuracy before the stories went into the paper.
Of course, that was high school football and the paper didn't come out until after the game was played.
Gees.
You're using Firefox? Good boy.
Have for years.
> If only they’d told me what I’m going to think of it, then I wouldn’t have to watch."
I don't think that what I think is printable on that kind of site.
> It's about a different failing of the MSM: poorly educated writers.
I thought that was an inherent failing of all liberals. That or a complete lack of any sort of common sense.
Just because a writer's incompetent doesn't mean they can't be biased.
I read the article. I didnt notice any bias. There was incompetence in publishing it early, but that was probably just on a technical level. In the web, your audience expects you to react quickly. Having a rather empty little article like that ready makes sense to me. As soon as the debate ends, you can throw up that article while you wait for the real writers to write the real article. All that seems to have happened here is that someone pressed the SEND button too early.
Of course you didn't notice any bias Donal. Who notices the wind when it's blowing in the direction they're headed?
"The stakes were sky-high for Sarah Palin, not to mention Republican presidential candidate John McCain, as she debated Democrat Joe Biden..."
Gee, I guess the stakes *weren't* sky-high for Joe Biden and Barack Obama because they aren't desperately clinging to the few votes that might go to them from those insufficiently intelligent and refined to vote for their opponents.
Yeah, no bias there.
Well, given that McCain/Palin were behind in the polls then yes.. the stakes WERE higher for them than for Biden. Especially given the feeling that Palin had not exactly excelled in her other attempts to explain her policies to other people..
Leave it to Donalbain to try to justify a journalists' writing (and publishing) an article about something that hasn't happened yet.
I am not justifying it. I am just pointing out that it is a simple mistake to have made. It is a symptom of sloppiness rather than bias.
Post a Comment