RECENT  POSTS:  » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy' » Legal profession made up of ideologues, demands legal ideologue » FRC's senior fellow for exporting/criminalizing gay people bemoan's discrimination's dwindling acceptance » (ARCHIVED): President signs executive order protecting LGBT workers » That discriminatory Colorado baker won't make Halloween cakes either » Catholic Bishops again go after basic workplace protections for LGBT people  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/02/2007

WNWJA (What Newswire Would Jesus Alter?)

by Jeremy Hooper

So do you remember last week when we showed you how the writers at the American Family Association's One News Now site were changing AP articles so as to make them more readily fir their agenda? Well, they are at it again.

This from the Washington Post's recent presentation of an AP wire story:

Picture 8-47

This from One News Now's presentation of the "same" story (changes highlighted):

Picture 9-38

And what's funny/ sad about this latest inappropriateness is that by making their alterations, ONN has actually altered the meaning of one of the lines. All other factors disregarded, it is simply not the same thing to say "homosexuals raising children" as it is to say "same-sex couples raising children," as the former completely abandons the duo-implying modifier! So while it's an offensive and inappropriate journalistic practice on ANY level, it's also a deliberate representation on a purely factual one!

How moral.

WaPo's version: Key to a Good Marriage? Share Housework.
ONN's: Children no longer seen as key priority for " successful marriages"

**There is some debate regarding whether the AP is acting in a manner inconsistent with the AP's rule book, or if they are justing acting in an unethical (yet not explicitly banned) manner. We're digging for answers.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Is there a place to just go and spit on these idiots? Tired, so terribly tired are these dangerous gang banger like fools manipulating to foster their empty lives at the expense of what i don't even know. This is beyond childish.

Posted by: ewe | Jul 2, 2007 3:18:46 PM

I believe that while a subscriber to AP services can edit the copy by cutting. .. or adding information that is relevant to the readership, changing the facts just ain't the policy. And if the story has a by-line to it (meaning an AP reporter) someone's "news" service can get into some interesting hot water over this deliberate alteration of fact.

Naturally, this is merely one more example of just how "christian" these people really are. . .it is nothing more than a cover. When a group hiding behind religion deliberately, repeatedly, and intentionally ignores one of the main tenets of that faith by manipulating truth and creating deception, they've lost any claim to representing that group.

Time to stop calling these charlatans "christians" and move on to describing them as they really are - cynical, evil political action committees more interested in fascist revolution with a theocratic face on it than any devotion to God.

Posted by: Kevin | Jul 2, 2007 5:54:46 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails