Topic: NewsBusters
A Feb. 25 NewsBusters post by Tom Blumer bashes the Associated Press for issuing a story on President Obama's address to Congress, written in past tense, several hours before the speech was given. But Blumer clearly doesn't understand the purpose of such a story.
The AP issues such a advance story for many such addresses, based on an advance copy of the speech. Why? To allow morning newspapers that publish early editions with a publication deadline before the speech is delivered to have a story on the speech. Newspapers with later deadlines would not run this story because it would be updated with reaction to the speech and other details. Since many news websites that publish AP copy are set up to do so automatically, advance stories such as this appear online as well.
Because Blumer doesn't understand what he's criticizing, he chooses to make fun of it, touting its "comic relief."
Blumer has frequently displayed his ignorance of the media he's supposedly criticizing. He has gotten facts wrong, he cluelessly thinks that supposed "liberal bias" is the only possible reason the newspaper industry is in trouble, and he has falsely suggested that President Bush didn't pre-select reporters to take questions from during press conferences while Bashing Obama for doing so.
How does someone who clearly knows so little about the media get to present himself as a media critic? Or is such ignorance a prerequisite for writing at NewsBusters?
