Well Bet, I couldn't give you a absolute number. . but I'd guess the AP "retracts" and then corrects lots of stories.
Retraction: a disavowal or taking back of a previous assertion. . .
The type of "retraction" refereed to the article is the type defined above- they released an erroneous story, and then they "took it back" and sent a correction. .
Now when you say "Official Retraction", I assume you're talking about a Retraction relating to libel. That kind of Retraction is generally a broadcast or published statement done to correct a previously published or broadcasted item that could be considered libelous. . and it's usually done to try and mitigate damages if they're sued.
Obviously that's not going to apply in this situation. . first of all, in order to prove libel of a public figure it would have to be proven that it was done purposefully with malice to cause actual damages to the persons reputation; and the actual damages to the person would also have to be proven.
I doubt whoever did this is going to confess; and even then it would have to be proven that the AP knew it was inaccurate and disseminated it purposefully to damage Bush's reputation.
The error/mischaracteration casts a bad light on the anonymous audience more then him anyway. and since the AP almost immediately "retracted" it, proving any real, malicious damage to his reputation would be next to impossible.
And that's another reason why you won't see written Retractions very often. . . they usually are an admittance of guilt for something they could be sued for in hopes of reducing liability, and not usually an admission of a simple mistake.
As far as pointing out biased headlines or stories; sure! As I said before I think the major media is a disgrace and I kind of like seeing and documenting the more blatant cases. .
Now as far as there being an overall "liberal media bias". . well, here's part of an article about the subject that pretty much reflects my view:
"Republicans of all stripes have done quite well for themselves during the past five decades fulminating about the liberal cabal/progressive thought police who spin, supplant and sometimes suppress the news we all consume. . .
But while some conservatives actually believe their own grumbles, the smart ones don't. They know mau-mauing the other side is just a good way to get their own ideas across--or perhaps prevent the other side from getting a fair hearing for theirs. On occasion, honest conservatives admit this.
Rich Bond, then chair of the Republican Party, complained during the 1992 election, "I think we know who the media want to win this election--and I don't think it's George Bush." The very same Rich Bond, however, also noted during the very same election, "There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media].... If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one."
Bond is hardly alone. That the media were biased against the Reagan Administration is an article of faith among Republicans. Yet James Baker, perhaps the most media-savvy of them, owned up to the fact that any such complaint was decidedly misplaced. "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about," he explained to one writer.
Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in Republican history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that," the aspiring American ayatollah cheerfully confessed during the 1996 campaign.
And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America today, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures. . . "
Full Story. .
Hi Marsha!
