Rather odd piece by the N.Z. Bear today, which claims, apparently, that the Associated Press selectively chose anti-war protesters of above-average lucidity and a pro-war speaker of below-average lucidity.

So, everybody who believes that every single anti-war protester was as articulate and polite as those quoted above, and that the only individual that this reporter could possibly find on the opposing side to quote was somebody "screaming" insults at the protesters, raise your hand.

Personally, what I wonder is why on earth N.Z. Bear seems to think that this sort of thing benefits the left. It's been practically a truism among those who actually *listen* to the anti-globalization movement that reporters will make a point of portraying everybody involved as stereotypical commies, loons, or simply dumb kids, regardless of whether or not they actually fit any of those stereotypes. That movement has been pretty much synonymous with the left for nearly a decade, and I don't recall the AP being a shining example of sympathy towards said movement. If the AP is biased towards the left, they do a damned poor job of it.

Besides, as Hesiod ably pointed out in his comments section, N.Z. Bear has no idea whether or not the AP piece was inaccurate. He simply assumes as much based on the quotations and the use of the word "heckler"(?), which is hardly conclusive evidence. There seems to be a lot of this going around by right-wing bloggers lately, and even Instapundit has commented on it:

N.Z. BEAR points out bias in an Associate Press story on antiwar protests by Angela Watercutter...Brian Carnell isn't very happy with UPI, either. And nobody likes Reuters. Hmm. I'm beginning to sense a more general problem. . . .

Indeed, IP, there's a problem. It's what appears to be an oversupply of incredibly sensitive and presumptive "media critics".