As fellow contributor Warner Todd Huston has demonstrated several times, the Associated Press is hardly the textbook example of an unbiased media source. Today the AP again showed their Obama-slanted bias with an article titled "Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands". But unsurprisingly, in the AP's alternate universe, "divisive stands" is defined as "conservative positions".
The AP piece begins:
Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush's unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.
Certainly Obama made some statements on the economy, but can we consider signing executive orders to close Gitmo, restore overseas abortion funding and updating the whitehouse.gov web site to slam President Bush and shill for pro-abortion causes as "avoid(ing) divisive partisan and ideological stands"? I think not.
The AP "journalist" continues:
He largely avoided cultural issues; the exception was reversing one abortion-related policy, a predictable move done in a very low-profile way.
Abortion is not a cultural issue? Please. And "a very low-profile way" - interpreted: he signed the EO at 5pm on a Friday, when no one was watching. In other words, he tried to avoid the conservatives' criticism. "Partisan and ideological" is precisely how that action should be described. It was not "avoided."
Later in the article, the author states "Certainly, some Republicans are griping about Obama's economic stimulus plan..." "Griping"? A loaded word, without a doubt. The author makes no mistake about her bias here. Later, she mentions the reading of the Executive Orders:
In one Oval Office ceremony, Obama went through each executive order as he signed them, reading parts of each and methodically explaining them. He even halted a few times to ask for clarification from his White House counsel. That sort of deferral to someone else in a public setting and admission of a less-than-perfect command of the facts was never Bush's style.
Here we find the obligatory Bush-bash, and the authoress does not bother to point out that perhaps the issue was that Obama didn't even bother to READ the EOs ahead of time, and was simply ignorant of what they actually said. Nope, couldn't be. The O is omniscient.
I suppose it's good that they've thrown off any pretense of unbiased reporting so we can read an AP story while fully aware that we will be getting the Obamatized version of the story and nothing that we could trust as reporting actual, you know, news.