The AP Version of Journalism

It has been clear throughout the primary season that the AP doesn't exactly care for Fred. Well they continue. Jed Babbin at Human Events, who is fairly pro-Fred, has written a piece on how the AP has treated Fred in the recent Tancredo dropout and endorsement of Mitt.

Here are some quotes:

AP’s Libby Quaid wrote on December 21, “Thompson suffered a stinging setback Thursday, when conservative Rep. Tom Tancredo dropped out of the presidential running and endorsed another rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Tancredo, a Colorado congressman, is a hero to many voters who are furious at illegal immigration in this country, and a lot of them are Iowa caucus goers. The endorsement was a disappointment to Thompson, especially since his week had begun on a high note with the unexpected backing of another anti-immigration hero, Rep. Steve King.”

There is a small problem with the AP story: the facts. Tancredo did endorse Romney, but Thompson actually benefited from Tancredo’s withdrawal, possibly more than Romney did. Thompson’s campaign staff was stunned: not by Tancredo’s speech, but AP’s coverage. And here’s why.

As reported by The Politico, Bill Salier -- Tancredo’s Iowa state chairman -- is joining Thompson’s team: “He's a true-believing social conservative who ran an uphill race in the '02 GOP Senate primary that raised some eyebrows. In short: He's the sort of worker bee a campaign likes to have on its side. If Salier puts his shoulder to the wheel for Fred, he could be a major asset.”

The basic story was not contrived: Tancredo did withdraw and endorse Romney. But the misreporting of it was the functional equivalent of an attack ad directed at Thompson. And it cannot have been accidental. No young reporter would be able to do that without an editor’s approval. Or, more likely, an editor’s orders.

If Tancredo’s withdrawal caused his chief Iowa asset to shift allegiance to Thompson, how is Tancredo’s endorsement of Romney a “stinging setback” for Thompson? It isn’t. Which raises the same issue about AP that I raised in August 2006: which of its editors is responsible for the contrived stories? Is it Johnson herself?

I commented on this last week when all of this was going on and came to the same conclusion regarding that it wasn't necessarily that bad of a turn for Fred. The AP coverage doesn't surprise me as they have been critical for the entire election cycle of Fred.