Thumb on the Scale
Looks as if the NYT endorsement of Hillary Clinton extends beyond the editorial page. I was curious when, on Super Tuesday and Woozy Wednesday, their front page map showed Clinton winning New Mexico, even though the contest had yet to be called and, once the link was clicked, you could see that Obama was still ahead if by a narrow margin (one that has now narrowly flipped, if still TBD). Why not just leave it uncolored? A minor matter, but one that gave visual impression of a stronger day for Clinton than warranted at the time. Then, they run a vacuous and highly misleading hit piece on Obama by Adam Nagourney, designed to show that Clinton was the big winner Tuesday.
3 Comments:
Yeah, that Nagourney "analyais" was egregious. The most outrageous line was: "White men in California voted for Mr. Obama but white men in Southern states like Alabama did not." Whaaaa? Did he LOOK at the exit polls before writing that?
Obama DOUBLED his support among whites from his 24% performance in South Carolina--and this was true in the South, too. In Georgia, he got 46% of white men. He may have been outpaced by HRC in white support, but he made huge inroads into the white vote, even in the South
I actually wrote in to the NYT public editor to complain about this coverage (the delegate counter, Nagourney, etc.). Can't imagine I'm the only one.
TMcD - I'd like to read your letter to the public editor, if you still have it and wouldn't mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home