March 09, 2007

Who Is Writing the Captions for AFP?

As I do from time to time, I was scanning though Yahoo! News images to see if anything interesting might be going on, when I came across the following.


Unless Nancy Pelosi snuck something into law in the past hour or so, the AFP caption writer is apparently going far beyond bias to outright fabrication.

There is a certain amount of editorializing that we are used to in many news organizations, and the "Brushing aside US public opinion" comment is a clear example of that, but then the writer goes beyond editorializing to complete fabrication, whe he or she states (my bold), "the Pentagon is to send more soldiers to Iraq on top of the extra troops announced in January which may now have to stay in the country until February 2008."

There is no set timetable for the withdrawal of U.S forces in Iraq in February 2008, nor at any other time. The writer is simply making up the news.

And no, I'm not buying the explanation that the writer might mean that the troops announced in January might be there until February 08. As many of the troops of the "surge" announced in January will not even deploy until later this spring or summer, that means their deployments would be roughly 6-9 months long, and that is clearly not what the writer is trying to convey.

I suspect that is the same caption writer the wrote the captions here:


I was able to find several stories discussing Clinton's comments, and yet in neither account can I find Clinton using the term "shabby rehabilitation," nor anything even reasonably close.

Well, that isn't entirely true.

I was able to find the words "shabby rehabilitation" in one account.


Did AFP crib from the Iranian-government controlled news agency, or was the AFP caption biased enough that it fit perfectly into the headline of the press agency of a repressive government?

In either event, I'm not sure it matters. What is clear is that our AFP caption writer seem quite content to make up the news as they go along.

Update: Added links to the Yahoo! photos.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 9, 2007 03:59 PM

AFP is run by the French, whose disdain for the truth is matched only by their craven cowardice. But don't just knock the proven surrender-monkies. The LATimes had some photo-shopped Iranian Fars items in their early editions last month. Anything that bashes Bushitler, to these cowards and haters, is journalistically true.

Posted by: daveinboca at March 9, 2007 05:40 PM

Hillary Clinton proposing dramatic changes to improve the delivery of healthcare ... wow, that sounds familiar. Talk about shabby rehabilitation ...

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by: Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report at March 9, 2007 07:43 PM

"There is a certain amount of editorializing that we are used to in many news organizations, and the 'Brushing aside US public opinion' comment is a clear example of that"

Not true. Public opinion in the US is solidly against the surge, so Bush is in fact brushing off public opinion:

See for yourself.

Unfortunately your blog system won't allow me to make a post containing the name of a popular search engine, so add the missing 'o' to the link above.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 10, 2007 02:41 AM

Good find! Unfortunately its not limited to the AFP.

As for polls. Few are objective data, most are subjective and a product of the questions and demogrqphics. Claims about the evidence of polls need to be heavily qualified to be valid.

Posted by: lonetown at March 10, 2007 10:55 AM

Lex, the first few articles didn't give much info about the polls or their numbers (and the numbers given did not agree), so if you could to post links that are more substantial on the questions and numbers, it would be appreciated.

Posted by: MikeM at March 10, 2007 11:50 AM

MikeM: well, here's one:

"Those surveyed oppose the idea of increased troop levels by 61%-36%."

--USA Today/Gallup

The reason I didn't give a specific link is that I'm often accused of referencing biased sources. Keep looking through the G**gle links, you'll see what I mean.

Posted by: Lex Steele at March 10, 2007 12:47 PM

Yes. But the FOX news network is not worthy of nevada democrats because of 'FOX's bias and lack of journalistic standards.'

It has become most apparent that in the West, in general, and in America, in particular, that rational debate and reasonable disagreement has long since been abandoned by the screaming deanie baby leftist utopians and their agents of propoganda.

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...."

Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at March 10, 2007 04:09 PM