The Telegraph and AP, who can trust them?

This is about so-called facts and journalist; we have taken an AP story by Beth Fouhy and handpicked by The Telegraph Executive Editor Sherrie Marshall for print. The article is laced with opinion which is dishonest, deceptive and a mark of the bigotry preferred by both.

As we start with the “facts” let us look at The Telegraph’s Mike Stucka and his “facts”. “Facts” as defined by Stucka and pointed out in: The Telegraph and Mike Stucka's advice.  If you will note in the first video clips Stucka is attributing “fact’ without quotes. The other video clips point out what happens when you do contact the editor as he suggest.

Stucka tells us that:

"News stories are indeed based on facts, and should not have an opinion. If you see a news story with opinion, by all means, please point it out to an editor with a telephone call or a letter to the editor. In the absence of actual examples -- facts that support your argument -- I can't really say anything else but in the abstract”

Let us look at these facts and the way they were used in The Telegraph and the AP coverage of the Republican National Convention. As we look at his let us keep in mind their recent conspiracy in the hatchet job and character assassination of the Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain.

The following is an e-mail we sent to The Telegraph's Mike Stucka on August 16, 2012 after he informs us "...you're building arguments based on things that aren't true." The e-mail can be seen at this link: Mike Stucka and The Telegraph: Facts dumbfound them! Needless to say when confronted with facts in print from the pages of The Telegraph Stucka to date has failed to respond.

So much for Stucka his “facts” and what one should do about it!

As for “facts” in the second paragraph Fouhy of the AP trots out an opinion the opinion was: “…the convention presented a show of party unity that once seemed distant” and “…there still were questions about how the party would tackle issues….”

The opinions continue with: “The convention also didn’t offer the game-changing shift in momentum many activists had hoped for…” Fouhy then trots out the opinion that: “…the focus on next week’s Democratic gathering means Romney’s own convention boost is likely to be short-lived.”  

Fouhy is of the opinion that: “Republicans had a lot riding on the outcome of the Tampa conclave…”

“In many ways the convention succeeded.” Is nothing but the writer’s opinion. We have been listening to numerous opinions since the convention on how it failed.

The following sentence is laced with the writer’s opinion. “Romney, whose image has been battered by a barrage of Obama campaign ads depicting him as a corporate raider and plutocrat, delivered a heartfelt acceptance speech…” Fouhy offers nothing to base these opinions on, therefor it remains her opinion.

“Romney also made a passionate appeal to voters who once supported Obama but are now disillusioned….”  Where is the proof of this, she offers none.

Fouhy offers the opinion that: 

“…the speech lacked many memorable phrases or laugh lines, and opened only the narrowest new window into how Romney would govern if elected president.” 

Then there was the opinion that: 

“…he resisted entreaties to get more specific about the appending cuts he’d make to bring the nation’s debt and deficits under control.”

Then Fouhy tells the reader what the AP is trying to sell as the opinion that: “Some of the most highly anticipated speeches fell short.” We have no proof of this, none what-so-ever.

Then Beth Fouhy of the AP and The Executive Editor of The Telegraph show just how slimy they are as they make the unsubstantiated allegation that Ryan’s speech “… contained several factual inaccuracies that threatened to contradict the Wisconsin congressman’s image as a self-professed truth teller.” 

They have labeled the man a liar without offering any proof. This is the same as they did with the character assassination of Herman Cain. This in its self-show just how deceitful they are willing to be.

Of course both The Telegraph and AP displayed this in The Telegraph's "hi-tech" lynching of Herman Cain!

We have to ask if Ryan’s speech “… contained several factual inaccuracies…” was that a fact or an accusation? If Fouhy and Marshall knew there were “inaccuracies” they had to know what was inaccurate. Since any “inaccuracies” were relevant to the story why not share them with the reader, why not be specific and point out exactly what was “inaccurate”. Could it be that the purpose of this entire article was to deceive the people? Probably just another hatchet job and character assassination!

At any rate in our opinion The Telegraph and the AP are where they are the most comfortable. They are in the gutter where a lot of people are of the opinion that, that is where they belong.

We intend to keep watch and document the scam artist at The Telegraph and the AP as they deceive the people of middle Georgia going into November.

We cannot forget this is the kind of so-called journalism speclist Mercer University President William D. Underwood has invited in too help train future journalism students. It would appear that he has no interest in honesty and integrity where his students are concerned, just the grant money.

Have a nice day.