I know, we should just accept the fact that the mainstream media is hopelessly lost. But still, a part of me hopes that someone in the mainstream media will some day realize how corrupt and simply bad journalists have become. That's why it still shocks me when an entity like the Associated Press gives a reporter a prize for getting the story wrong, repeatedly.
Yes, I'm talking about the AP's John Solomon who wrote a series of yellow journalism hack pieces attacking Harry Reid while failing to get key facts correct, and even twisting the stories to mislead the readers about the true facts.
When the concerns were raised to AP, what did it do? It gave the reporter a prize.
Even more appalling, part of the AP's justification for giving the reporter the prize is the fact that people got so upset about the series of stories being factually incorrect:
"It was the most talked-about, blogged-about political story of the week _ twice."
Yes, it was talked about because it was wrong and biased. That's now a good thing in the AP Style Book? Josh Marshall has the details.
I am a journalist. I've written for publications just as important as AP. I get how good writing and good sourcing works. And good journalism has nothing to do with getting the story wrong, repeatedly. It has nothing to do with intentionally misleading your readers with crafty wording that implies something that is totally false (simply because you don't have the facts to back up what you wish the story could prove).
And good journalism most certainly doesn't mean a news organization, recognizing the concern such errors and bias have generated amongst its readers, responds by giving the unprofessional reporter an award for his mistakes, as if this were some childhood skirmish deserving nothing more than a "na na na na na" in response.
I suggest every Democrat in town pay close attention in the future. You respond to John Solomon's interview requests at your own peril. Then see how good his Hill reporting is when half the folks in DC refuse to even speak with him because of his glaring bias and unprofessionalism.
