Read "violating." Please excuse the bad language, but AP, which I used to respect, has really lost its bearings.
Guys, if the newspaper industry is going down, at least go down with some integrity and dignity.

Stuff like that is enough to piss off the Pope...
The guy stands up and takes responsibility when 99.9% of politicians would find somebody to throw under the bus, and that is how they react? What a joke.

Amen. You know, call me crazy, but I really think that journalism should have higher standards than the Wiki.

What's wrong with AP occasionally mixing a little actual news in with their pro-Marxist propaganda?

They have to maintain some semblance of a subscriber base to stay in business. Even though their readership is falling away in droves. And I'm loving that development!!!!

I don't get it. Will someone please explain how the AP article cite is so offensive?

.

Hmmmm . . .

It's baaaaackkk . . .

~OGD~

OK, eds, I'll try. The gist of it is sketched out above, in my comment No. 3.
You're right, the Babington article itself is unimportant, totally forgettable -- UNLESS you are a veteran of this summer's battle against AP's shoddy election coverage.
I criticized it. Our host, Josh Marshall, called it "atrocious." Even Politico weighed in on why it was problematic:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11716.html
Some of us thought we'd killed this zombie.
To see Babington resurface, unrepentant in his journalistic bizarritude, as AP's White House reporter reinforces my headline's suggestion that AP is arrogantly determined to learn nothing.
Charles, even if your piece is tagged "analysis," you have to back up what you're saying. You're not f---ing Krauthammer.
Media Matters picked up on exactly the point that so infuriated me: "The new president, seen by some as arrogant" is totally gratuitous -- and totally unsubstantiated. The bogosity of that characterization is underlined by the fact Drudge featured it on his site most of the day.
If Babington wants to assert that Obama is arrogant -- or even that "some see" him as arrogant -- fine. I'll read that article. But let him set out the evidence.
Quote people by name, Cite documented examples. Don't give me Georgetown cocktail-party gossip; AP is not TMZ.
Google the four AP staffers I mentioned, eds, and you'll see that the objectivity of each has been questioned.
In backing their approach, AP seems to think it's being edgy, with-it and "bloggy."
No, AP, you're just abandoning all journalistic standards.

I'm annoyed all right. And I realize I'm shouting about what might seem like a very minor stylistic point.
But, like I said, google these four AP writers. I found the pattern that emerged during the election campaign infuriating, as did Josh, other TPM posters, and many other blog sites.
AP got so skittish it circulated an internal memo on how to defend its election team against charges of bias.
That Babington is back, pulling the same kind of crap -- only now reporting from the White House --is a slap in the face to readers. Do we have to call out the same abuse ad infinitum?
And yes, the article itself isn't even all that derogatory to Obama; it's just lazy, cheap and journalistically shoddy.
AP has a crucial role to play as the major North American wire service. Its integrity is a public trust. I expect it to get its act together.