Some Democrats have criticize the Associated Press for being bias in favor of Sen John McCain. The focus of that criticism has been Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier after emails surfaced that he exchanged with Karl Rove.
But looking at their recent coverage, I must give the AP credit for a technique they are using that I first saw Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei use when he was with The Washington Post. That is, reporting a misleading statement but then immediately correcting the record. A perfect example is to contrast the way the two news organizations handled Cindy McCain’s charge that Obama voted against funding the troops.
The Post’s Mike Shear reports:
Cindy McCain led the way, accusing the Democrat of voting against funding U.S. troops in Iraq, which at one time included the McCains’ son.
“The day that Senator Obama decided to cast a vote to not fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body,” Cindy McCain told a crowd of several thousand supporters in Bethlehem, Pa. “I would suggest Senator Obama change shoes with me for just one day and see what it means to have a loved one serving in the armed services.”
The Obama campaign said McCain has distorted his vote, which was an attempt to force Bush to come up with a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq by setting a cutoff date.
The AP reports:
Also on Wednesday, Cindy McCain criticized Obama for voting against a bill to pay for the troops in Iraq.
“The day that Sen. Obama cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you,” she told a Pennsylvania crowd before introducing the Arizona senator and his running mate Sarah Palin.
In fact, Obama consistently voted for Iraq troop financing [emphasis added] except on one occasion. In May 2007, he voted against a troop-funding bill because it did not also specify steps for a withdrawal.
And McCain has not always voted for money for the troops. On one troop-funding bill supported by Obama, McCain missed the vote and encouraged President Bush to veto it, because it did call for withdrawal.
I think it important that reporters point out clearly when there is a misleading characterization. In The Post’s case, it reported Obama’s response, a good thing, but it is more effective — and I think more objective and fair journalism — when the reporter states the facts and how one party or the other is misleading the public, especially when it is a case of hypocrisy.