If you were the editor of the nation's "newspaper of record" and an upstart candidate just overtook the favored, establishment candidate, in his sixth overwhelming victory in places he wasn't suppose win (VA) with constituencies he wasn't suppose to with (Latinos, Women, Incomes <$50k) would you:
a) run a cover of the Republican victor, who had the nomination already locked up or
b) run a cover of the crestfallen favorite/victorious spoiler?
Unfortunately, the New York Times did "a" in its February 12th/13th web edition and that is a shame, a sham and a visible bias toward its "endorsed" candidate. It's a shame too that National Public Radio last night barely spent any time on the Obama victory rather dedicating most of its time to a Hillary speech in Texas. Are they deliberately trying to blunt the blow of Obama's bludgeoning victory? I don't know but it's so lame.
While I depend on and generally like these two sources of news it seems like they are biased heavily toward Billary. It's a bummer I don't have the screen shot from last night and this morning's paper to share.
On a brighter note, more accurate reporting may be found at The Nation:
Virginia Democrats and Republicans Make Obama's Case
"Obama won pretty much every constituency where he's presumed to be weakest: women (58 percent in rough exit polls), rural voters (60 percent), Latinos (55 percent) and folks without college educations (63 percent). He won handily among people who think Iraq matters most, who think health care matters most, and who think the economy matters most. He took more than 60 percent of the vote among those making both less and more than $50,000. Obama narrowly carried the white vote in Virginia, continuing to build on his momentum among the notoriously stubborn Caucasian Democrats of Dixie, having won 25 percent of white votes in South Carolina (when the race was still three-way) and then bucked it up to 43 percent in Georgia last week. He also won the stubbornest demographic in Virginia, whites over 65. Only white women went for Clinton, and by nowhere near Obama's 16-point margin among white men."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
It seems that everyone thinks that the media is anti-them, pro-the other team. I feel that way all the time.
That said, I too am puzzled by the coverage. Why on Earth are the media not screaming about Obama's momentous clobbering of the so-called front-runner? That he could come out of nowhere, without a war chest or personal fortune, and not only contend, but now LEAD the most established of establishment candidates is profound.
It seems as though the goal line keeps moving. Iowa was a watershed, but can he do it in a primary? SC was a landslide, but can he do it in a less-Black state? He won more delegates on Super Tuesday, but will Hillary win with the Superdelagtes? Now he's ahead by all counts, but what happens in Texas and Ohio? And maybe Florida and Michigan will count? And maybe Howard Dean will intervene for Hillary? I mean, what more do we have to accomplish to show that we've made it in the eyes of the media?
Perhaps there is bias (like CNN's continued insistence of showing a map where Michigan and Florida are colored for Clinton), perhaps there is fear of pulling a "New Hampshire," where the press was both wrong and also affected the outcome in their premature burial of HRC. I scratch my head here...
Post a Comment