Seriously, AP? - Community

http://web.blogads.com/advertise/liberal_blog_advertising_network

Seriously, AP?

I was surprised to read this AP story , and not for the events it covered. The lede in reference:

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - A businessman and his girlfriend, whose bank accidentally handed them a $6.1 million credit line, have managed to flee the country with more than a third of the cash, the bank said Friday.

A businessman and his girlfriend... Okay, fair enough. The businessman might have committed the heist and his girlfriend merely accompanied him in his flight. But, wait...

Westpac Bank said in a statement Friday that the couple, who ran a gas station in the North Island city of Rotorua, had a bank overdraft of New Zealand $61,000. On Thursday, the bank had mistakenly said the couple's overdraft was worth NZ$10,000.

But in formalizing this credit limit — meant for the gas station the couple ran — the bank accidentally opened a line of credit for NZ$10 million ($6.1 million), the statement said. Initial details from the bank indicated that money had actually been deposited into their account.

The gas station "the couple ran ." The "couple's overdraft." "Their " account. Yet the story identifies him as a businessman and her as a girlfriend ?

The story goes on to clarify that the gas station was registered in the name of the "businessman" and another person not connected to the heist, and that the credit limit was meant for the business. That the girlfriend has no legal rights to his part of the business does give the businessman more of a a vested interest in and accountability for it. However, the article also infers that the account in question was a joint one and that the couple had equal culpability in the heist. As well, the label of "businessman" does not necessarily infer business ownership, as seen in this AP story . The fact that the couple both operated the gas station implies that each engages in business -- hence the definition of a businessman and businesswoman. Instead, the girlfriend is denied any recognition of her contributions to the business and instead is identified only by her relationship to her boyfriend. Somehow, I don't think that being just a girlfriend will influence the bank or the New Zealand courts to hold her any less accountable.

In the AP's defense, they probably just picked up this story from some other news organizaton and syndicated it. I'm a reporter and the AP has picked up some of my stories before that they then made available to other newspapers, who rarely, if ever, credit the original writer and instead slap "AP" in the byline. But with that AP attribution comes the ability to edit the story to meet AP standards, something the AP chose not to do in this case. If I were on the AP copydesk, I'd make just one edit:

"A couple, whose bank accidentally handed them a $6.1 million credit line, have managed to flee the country with more than a third of the cash, the bank said Friday."

Because, really, the business is ancillary to the story. Sure, the account in question was intended for the business he is a co-owner of, but both operated the business and the bank account belonged to both of them.

In the grand scale of gender relations, one lede in one brief news story is probably just a niggling detail. But the media is one of the most influential forces in defining and mediating gender relations, and newspapers have an ethical obligation to report all news, even minor news, fairly, accurately and without bias. That the AP is one of the largest shared media outlets in the world makes its duty even more imperative.

For shame, AP. I expected better of you.

Posted by richaro - May 22, 2009, at 04:03PM | in Media