Originally posted by sh76
Okay, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that their points are valid.
The business of news has been the business of spin for so long now that if anyone ever had impartiality at some previous time, then that was then, the interest now it seems is to construct a brand, that can be easily identified as standing for something. Impartiality is seen as being weak, undecided, ineffectual, and lacking a moral center.
Impartiality equates with fence sitting equates with blandness equates with disappearing without trace. Fox has proved that with a strong narrative to underpin their news coverage, they could appeal to and attract a particularly strong and loyal following. In the process they have redefined the notion of what fair and balanced is. In this sense Fox has been a game changer and forced their competitors to study and analyze their business model as well as their editorial stance.
Survival into the future means that among other media players there is less of an attempt to provide neutral coverage. When this happens to one of the sources that has been content to simply compile the available news of the day, then with their critique of the theatrics that have accompanied the debate of a particular bill AP have simply signaled that they are willing to adapt into the new media environment and are willing to stick their necks out and generate a bit of passion and loyalty themselves.
btw there is no argument about the validity of their argument.