RECENT  POSTS:  » Jodie Foster in 2013: 'I am'; Jodie Foster in 2014: 'I do' » AFA promotes its new app in only way it knows how » Robert Oscar Lopez says I perform 'psychological operations routine' on him when I quote his own words from his own web site » Matt Barber's ever-classy site suggests gay people are literally crushing fellow humans » Bryan Fischer is on to our comic book villain–in-chief » Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Al Mohler 'can't give' us acceptance; good thing we're not asking » NOM fails to trip up Oregon marriage case » Audio: Tony Perkins equates opposing equality with opposing Nazis » 'WaPo' conservative columnist: 'Strident' marriage equality opponents have lost » If you feel like you hear about another marriage case every day, here's why  

« 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