Subtle but interesting difference in Yahoo and Fox News' report on Clark

[ignatiusr]

I happened to read Yahoo's publishing of the Associated Press release this morning regarding Clark's statement that this had become a two-man race. Later on, I noticed the story was published on Fox News' website as well. Both are credited to the Associated Press, but Fox News has altered the story (or at least, I'm assuming it was Fox that altered the story, since Yahoo seems like a pretty objective source). Can they do that? I've always wondered if it was OK for news outlets to add whatever they wanted to AP stories.

Here's the difference, and it's an interesting one, since there has been so much speculation that the conservative press really wants to position Dean as the nominee, since they see him as the weakest candidate:

Yahoo Release Excerpt:

"We will have ample resources to compete well into February and beyond," campaign spokesman Matt Bennett said.

Clark is in relatively strong position in polls both nationally and in states with early contests.

As Clark tries to narrow the race to two candidates, other campaigns are likely to start diverting some of their relentless attacks on Dean."

Fox News Release Excerpt:

"We will have ample resources to compete well into February and beyond," said campaign spokesman Matt Bennett. Clark is in relatively strong position in polls both nationally and in states with early contests.

Dean leads in national polls and in New Hampshire as well as some states with early contests.

As Clark tries to narrow the race to two candidates, other campaigns are likely to start diverting some of their relentless attacks on Dean."

What do you think the thought process was of Fox when they decided to alter the story to show Dean's strength, rather than Clark's?

[wndycty]

1. It is my understanding they can alter stories. . .

. . .often times you will read an AP story in your local paper that is sometimes edited to reflect a local angle. However it should be noted that FOX is obviously trying to slant the story. . .there is nothing wrong with altering the story, but there is something questionable about doing it to further an agenda.

[Racenut20]

2. It appears to me Faux and Republicans want Dean to win.

[joeybee12]

3. Doesn't seem too sinister to me...

...was this basically a press release sent out by the Clark campaign? If so, then I would encourage any news outlet to alter any press release, and they usually do. The campaign is obviously trying to paint its candidate in the best possible light, and if a news outlet prints the release verbatim, I have many more problems with that than with altering it. Press releases are publicity, not news.

[ignatiusr]

5. It's not a press release

My understanding is that it's a story from an Associated Press writer, based on this statement, which was made by Clark yesterday:

"It's now clear that I'm one of only two candidates in a position to win the nomination," Clark, a retired general, said in a statement issued Thursday. "And I'm the only candidate positioned to actually win the election because I am the candidate best able to stand up to George W. Bush and win the debate about who will best be able to make our country secure over the next four years."

[FreakinDJ]

4. I would imagine they could only edit

To add content under the AP heading would seem questionable.

If the addition were in parentheses and subtitled with a different source then it would be acceptable

[bloom]

6. I've seen AP stories with info added or deleted.

It seems reasonable to clarify something that is misleading.

[ignatiusr]

7. If it were misleading, I would agree

But it's not misleading to say Clark is doing "relatively" strong in polls without qualifying it by talking about how strong Dean is. Dean already gets plenty of play in the article, and there's no question that he's also doing well.

I don't know, maybe I'm just jaded, but I'm reluctant to interpret Faux's antics in regards to Democrats as being genuine attempts to clarify misleading statements.

[Justice]

12. Sin Of Omission

What Fox is doing is talking up Dean without crediting Clark. Fox talks about Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry, sometimes Edwards, then Clark. A story on strength in the south literally spoke of Edwards and then mentioned Lieberman's strength in the south before mentioning Clark.

I am not saying that it should be only Clark and Dean, just that Clark is treated as an also ran, after mentioning the 3-4 other candidates.

[quinnox]

8. Nothing new, Fox has been pushing Dean for long time

A few months back, I learned from a DU thread that every half hour Fox was showing a Dean commercial made by his campaign team, as a promo for a news story they were going to do on it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. THAT is a perfect example

of the RW, WH talking heads doing the WH's bidding. It's obvious who the WH wants to be the nominee...it's apparent every time a RW, WH talking head on TV and in papers defends Dean or adds a subtle little alteration in a news story.

I was watching MSNBC the other night and they were talking about how much money Dean raised at his house parties. Did they even MENTION Wes Clark's house parties? Of course not. THEN, Frank Luntz (a republican pollster) was on MSNBC talking about how wonderful Howard Dean is. He was practically drooling.

The above excerpts are a prime example of how they are pushing Dean....sometimes subtle, sometimes NOT.

[John_H]

10. Could it mean that Ailes wants Dean, fears Clark?

eh Dean supporters? Can you tell us why Fox would make that change? Please?

[neverforget]

11. Faux News doing what it does best: manipulate the news however

they want it to be read/heard. Both statements are "true" but one comes away with a different impression with each one. It's called propaganda.

[poopyjr]

13. Is it suprising?

Fox News wants the high-taxing, gay marriage, anti-war Vermont governor.

Nothing new.