Life without the Associated Press
Reading the paper this morning, I was struck with an unusual thought. What would we do without the Associated Press? Well, we'd have to go without gems like this from Hope Yen on a Supreme Court ruling:
|...The ruling, divided mostly along ideological lines, created a bit of an anomalous result for the conservatives Scalia and Thomas... In their opinion, Scalia and Thomas stuck to their conservative philosophy of interpreting statutes according to their strict, dictionary meaning, rather than delving into a presumed intent of Congress...|
Of course, no mention of liberal Justices and their habit of using subjective, relaxed, interpretative meanings based upon extra-sensory perception or other means of divining what they thought Congress had intended.
Just conservative Judges who use a cold, strict, dictionary meaning.
Going without an AP would also mean we'd miss stool samples such as this from Noor Khan:
|Afghan farmers have begun harvesting this year's opium crop, exposing the limits of a U.S.-sponsored crackdown on the world's largest narcotics industry despite claims Tuesday by President Hamid Karzai that drug cultivation was down sharply...|
Of course, recall the fact that Bashir Noorzai -- the Tony Montana of Afghan Opium production -- was arrested just a couple of days ago in New York. Wouldn't it make sense to report upon the impact that his arrest might make on funding the nascent, Afghan insurgency? How it might damage the distribution channels? Or how it might hamper a reconstituted Taliban? Nope. Not if you're the AP.
The AP has had enough arrows fired at them over the past year or so -- and deservedly so. You'd think they'd have gotten the picture by now... and at least have made a cursory effort to curtail their biased tripe. But they can't seem to help themselves.
You know, a more liberal reading of the pooper-scooper laws would keep droppings like these out of the newspaper.