I was reading the link on the main page about the reason behind the recent AP slant toward McCain (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11716.html). Yet as I read, a question rang in the back of my mind: Sound familiar? The truth is that I already read a lot of publications that have that dendency, starting with The Economist, and not ending anywhere in sight. However, to me, The Economist served as a good example of this same tendency, with a different reception. Economist articles tend to be very opinionated, with strong moral judgments (although I agree with its point of view on Zimbabwe, of course, some of the statements found in this article [http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670822] would never be tried in a NY Times article that was outside the Opinion section), just like the AP is attempting to do. What is the difference? Reputation? The Economist has a darn good one. It gets away with calling itself a newspaper (Not sure if it actually is or not). An article from there will make my Macro professor pause about whatever he's saying to double-check (and he can be rather pompous and sure of himself at times). But perhaps the difference is in reputation of aim. As good as it is, The Economist does not attempt to be any kind of newspaper of record the way the AP and Reuters do. The public editor of the NYT, the "official" newspaper of record, even ceded that his newspaper is not one given the lack of ability of people (who will always have opinions that make it into writing even subconsciously) to write in the completely detached manner necessary, but the AP has always seemed to try that. If so, then the problem is a paper having it both ways, benefitting from a reputation it really shouldn't have. However, I submit this to the floor: Is there actually something wrong with the AP writing the way it has, and if so, what? Is there a good corrective for it?