You mean the organization who thinks a man who chased down a minor with a gun in hand on camera and was shot because of it is a 'victim'?
Or that time when the defend a Harvard professor against plagiarism accusations because Republicans were talking about it?
Or when they literally messaged an employee who was publically fired from a state 12 months prior instead of the main Government question line, despite them doing so dozens of times in the last 8 months, to piss themselves that the governor didn't respond?
The organization that has multiple times defended a man chasing down a minor down with a handgun in hand, and lying about when that man was shot, because said mino had bad think opinions?
Or their multiple attempts to defend the 'New Black Panthers', an organization that has a leader who has stated that they want to r*pe Jewish babies to death?
Or the time they fact checked something that doesn't even meet the level of any orgs fact checks: when they talked about how likely 'JD Vance r*ped a couch'?
Or when they said people who rioted and assaulted people in line for a comedy show were fans of the comedy show, despite the signs in the picture they used a sign of someone clearly against the comedy show?
The AP are the example of 'honorable j-slurism' of being why no one should trust journ*lists.
They a news agency and wire service. One that is held up as being factual and non-partisan which hasn't been true for nearly 15 years. They've had a strong Pro Dem leaning since about 2012 which was when OWS started AND when Obama tried to aggressively jail one of their reporters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!chuds !journ*listsdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/54d35/54d359fd9741b4796afdf9afc9e1c0ddd77bd08f" alt=":marseyemojirofl: :marseyemojirofl:"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
they took hours to call extremely obvious swing states for Trump.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
it's true though.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You mean the organization who thinks a man who chased down a minor with a gun in hand on camera and was shot because of it is a 'victim'?
Or that time when the defend a Harvard professor against plagiarism accusations because Republicans were talking about it?
Or when they literally messaged an employee who was publically fired from a state 12 months prior instead of the main Government question line, despite them doing so dozens of times in the last 8 months, to piss themselves that the governor didn't respond?
The organization that has multiple times defended a man chasing down a minor down with a handgun in hand, and lying about when that man was shot, because said mino had bad think opinions?
Or their multiple attempts to defend the 'New Black Panthers', an organization that has a leader who has stated that they want to r*pe Jewish babies to death?
Or the time they fact checked something that doesn't even meet the level of any orgs fact checks: when they talked about how likely 'JD Vance r*ped a couch'?
Or when they said people who rioted and assaulted people in line for a comedy show were fans of the comedy show, despite the signs in the picture they used a sign of someone clearly against the comedy show?
The AP are the example of 'honorable j-slurism' of being why no one should trust journ*lists.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
are you like room temp IQ and have no idea what the AP is
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Do you know what a journ*list is? AJAB
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
They a news agency and wire service. One that is held up as being factual and non-partisan which hasn't been true for nearly 15 years. They've had a strong Pro Dem leaning since about 2012 which was when OWS started AND when Obama tried to aggressively jail one of their reporters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
i hate journos is a tired gimmick at this point
im gonna have tvs in the basement constantly streaming cnn and msnbc just to make u mad
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not a gimmick. Journos suck. Still a bad precedent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
gonna add a poster of rachel maddow just for this comment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Every news organization of note has an endless list of controversies. That doesn't make banning the AP for this pretext any less r-slurred
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sure, but the point is they are not even close to being a middle of the road since Obama tried to jail one of their reporters.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Deadass I thought AP primarily licensed photos out to other outlets
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They are a wire service so they sell a lot of info and photos, but they also publish their own
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context