This is interesting.

Clinton was on her fourth campaign trip to Nevada, the site of the nation’s
second caucus, Jan. 19. She met with hotel and casino workers at a union hall
in Las Vegas, and addressed several hundred people at a town hall speech at
a North Las Vegas high school.

In both venues, Clinton struck populist notes, criticizing disparities between
the rich and poor, bemoaning the diminishing middle class and complaining
about soaring pay and benefits for chief executives in corporate America.

In an interview with the AP, Clinton defended her own acceptance of discounted
rides on private jets. … ..

defends Iraq war funding vote



Oh, and make sure you take a look at the AP photo.

I happened to be seated next to Kathleen Hennessey, the AP reporter who wrote
the story above. I can’t help but wonder how she counts crowds. “Several
hundred people” is off by a couple of thousand, maybe even a three thousand. That “North Las Vegas
high school” was a fairly new magnet school with a very impressive agenda
for the students. It’s not called Canyon Springs High School and the Leadership
and Law Prepatory Academy
for nothing. It’s actually part of the story.
But to read Ms. Hennessey’s story you’d think it was just your average high
school. Hardly.

CorrentWire caught the crap Hennessey was spewing.

Clinton initially opposed cutting off funds for the troops, but said Wednesday that she believed last week’s vote was cast in support of soldiers abroad.

Cutting off funds for the troops. Beautiful. Any other wingnut talking point you’d like to insert in your article, Ms. Hennessey?

There was an easy remedy to keep Republican talking points from showing up in the AP article, so I guess the Clinton camp got what they deserved. It’s long past time to question a campaign’s judgment in providing an interview with
the AP, but not reaching out to others, including myself or any number of others at the event. I’d at least have bothered with
important facts, while also leaving out adjectives and the Fox “News” type Iraqi analysis. It’s not only lazy of the AP writer, but the adjectives used
reveal open judgments that a reporter shouldn’t offer. Bias, anyone? We’ve been here before with the AP.

Bloggers are being offered media passes, but the actual access we are granted
for interviews remains paltry, especially with top tier candidates. Considering
the lack of accuracy in stories like the one represented above by the AP you
really have to wonder what campaigns have to lose by expanding involvement of
media types, including bloggers. Must be nice to get paid for thin pieces like this one. I guess as long as you offer sound bites about the war that confirm Republican talking points about Democrats, and something a bit controversial as a bonus, the rest of the details don’t matter much. But when stories like the one above go out on the
wires it would be nice if they actually were accurate and offered a true flavor
of the event. The Clinton camp was wrong not to expand the interview field.
But it’s not exactly news that they didn’t.