AP Bias or Incompetency?

In an AP article yesterday, an AP reporter brought out the old canard that Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. The facts are plainly against this notion, as even a different AP writer notes in this article.

DAVID RISING: The U.S. refused to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol limiting emissions because developing countries were not included. Rising economic giants, China and India, are exempt, and the treaty says nothing about post-2012 cuts.

But what did the other reporter write, which I've seen in other articles, even Reuters?

GEIR MOULSON: President Bush rejected that accord, saying it would harm the U.S. economy and unfair excludes developing countries like China and India from its obligations.

What happened between yesterday and today? Is it just because it's two different writers, or is there an editorial bias in different offices? I'm not the only one noticing these differences, as Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has noted before, and even links to another blogger writing on the same thing today. I think it's time to contact AP and Reuters to let them know that blatantly disprovable statements should no longer be allowed in their reports, unless they are direct quotes from named sources. Here is the editorial contact information for the AP and Reuters.

• AP Bureau Chiefs (pdf)
• Reuters Editorial Feedback (click on "Contact a Reuters Editor" for a popup comment box)

If enough people let them know that they can't play metanarrative games with the anti-environment Bush meme, then we won't have to endure emotional falsehoods when reporting on a policy debate that is already too short on reason.