Read this short AP article: Creator of World Wide Web starts blog
Notice any errors?
[Spoilers below…]
]]>< ![CDATA[
- The author doesn’t give the reader even a shred of a clue as to how to find the site. Remember this is supposed to be professional journalism by an AP Internet reporter, and the subject of the story is a blog. How exactly does the reporter (and the various editors) forget to include a link to the blog?
- What, no Al Gore joke?
For the record Tim Berners-Lee’s “blog” is part of MIT’s Decentralized Information Group (DIG) blog. It’s about as interesting as you’d expect it to be…
455 comments and only 1 Al Gore crack?
Sounds like somebody has been deleting comments already.
You missed something else. If this is from the AP…where’s the Cindy Sheehan photo-op of the day? I thought their new style sheet promised “a Cindy in every story”?
I spotted another example of dubious reporting at NBC. I smell the next media meme in the wind. Here is the email I sent to nightly@nbc.com with the details:
Dir sirs,
I am writing concerning inaccurate reporting in the following news story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10564550/
In it, the party affiliation of Republican officials is repeatedly noted in connection with Abramoff. However, the story fails to point out the Democratic affiliation of Max Baucus. In fact, only the Republican party is mentioned in connection with potential wrongdoing while the Democratic party connections are omitted.
This is a striking omission considering that among the most powerful Democratic Congressman all the way up to the Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, have been connected to Abramoff:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html
This leaves only two possible explanations. First, this may be an example of shoddy journalism. I would expect better work from such a seasoned and highly regarded journalist as Andrea Mitchell. Alternatively, the omission could be construed as an example of partisan media bias and selective reporting. Once again, I would expect better from Ms. Mitchell. Neither explanation is flattering and both warrant corrective action.
Sincerely,