Accuracy In Media Not So Accurate

209 words.

My conscience dictates that I post this small retraction: Last week when I was rambling about Keith Olbermann, I linked to what I called an “interesting article” on Accuracy in Media (AIM) which suggested a link between the post-9/11 anthrax mailings and al Qaeda.

I’m always enthusiastic about finding new media watchdog blogs, so I eagerly added an Accuracy in Media feed to my news reader. Since then, I’ve been subjected to a non-stop stream of far-right rhetoric, which has prompted me to conclude that AIM isn’t so much interested in “accuracy in media” as it is “accurate representation of far-right ideology in media.”

This is basically the same problem I experienced with the similarly far-left rhetoric of Media Matters. So I’ve deleted Accuracy in Media from my news reader (as I did Media Matters) and I hereby retract any previous implication that AIM might contain factual information. I heartily apologize to anyone who may have stumbled onto AIM through my earlier post, and if you are currently reading AIM to stay informed, I urge you to seek professional help in reversing the brainwashing you are being exposed to.

That is all.

Thomas Krehbiel writes The Krehbiel Strikes Back, a generally centrist commentary on news, media, politics, and culture.

Related

This page is a static archival copy of what was originally a WordPress post. It was converted from HTML to Markdown format before being built by Hugo. There may be formatting problems that I haven't addressed yet. There may be problems with missing or mangled images that I haven't fixed yet. There may have been comments on the original post, which I have archived, but I haven't quite worked out how to show them on the new site.

Sorry, new comments are disabled on older posts. This helps reduce spam. Active commenting almost always occurs within a day or two of new posts.