Two AP memos, two different conservative media reactions
September 06, 2010 4:37 pm ET by Terry Krepel
A couple weeks ago, when the Associated Press issued a memo advising its news organization members to avoid the term “Ground Zero mosque” to describe the proposed Islamic center in New York City because it’s not at Ground Zero and isn’t primarily a mosque, conservatives looked askance. At Michelle Malkin’s website, Doug Powers suggested it was “a retread of a pro-mosque talking points memo” and asserted that the proposed center’s site would be considered Ground Zero if the AP’s headquarters were there.
The Media Research Center’s Dan Gainor was just as harsh, claiming that the AP “had to choose sides” and was acting as “spinmeisters,” adding that accurately describing things is “one of the games journalists play.” He also repeated Powers’ line about how the AP might think differently if its headquarters were closer.
Another day, another AP memo, a completely different reaction from the conservative media.
This time, the memo pointed out that “U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended.” This was interpreted by the conservative media as a smackdown of President Obama, of which they approved:
Tom Blumer of NewsBusters -- operated by the Media Research Center, which attacked the AP over the “Ground Zero mosque” memo -- declared that in the new memo “at least one limit has been found to the establishment press's willingness to serve as this government's official apologists” and that “is asserting that Obama is at least not telling the truth in this instance.” WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, carried an article on the memo with the headline, “Oops! Did Associated Press call Obama a liar?”
The lesson? The AP has been consistent in endeavoring to tell the truth. The only consistency the conservative media cares about is promoting its right-wing message; the truth is secondary.

















When I read that AP memo, it seemed to me that they were clarifying that combat will still occur in Iraq despite 45k troops coming home.
That does not make the administration liars. It clarifies what still exists in Iraq.
Whaaaa? This Gainor guy is giving me whiplash.
And if accurately describing things is "one of the games journalists play", then I do wish they'd play it all of the time.
American troops in Iraq cannot become involved in any fighting except at the request of the Iraqi government. These are the terms in the SOFA. The Iraqi government requested their assistance.
WTF!?! Isn't that exactly what the definition of journalism is?