Tuesday,
November 23 2004
POST-ELECTION
COCOONING AT THE NEW YORK TIMES:
The election is over - but the liberal cocooning at the
New York Times is not. Compare the following treatment
of the latest CBS News/NY Times poll:
CBS
News (No byline)
Title: "Poll:
Bush's Next Four Years"
Lead Paragraphs of Story: "The
majority of Americans feel optimistic about the next four
years with George W. Bush as President, but they disagree
on whether Bush’s second term in office will bring
Americans together or further divide them.
Most
are confident that President Bush will make the right
decisions to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks,
and just over half think he will be able to end the war
in Iraq successfully. "
New
York Times (Adam Nagourney & Janet Elder)
Title: "Americans
Show Clear Concerns on Bush Agenda"
Lead Paragraphs of Story: "After
enduring a brutally fought election campaign, Americans
are optimistic about the next four years under President
Bush, but have reservations about central elements of
the second-term agenda he presented in defeating Senator
John Kerry, according to the latest New York Times/CBS
News Poll.
At
a time when the White House has portrayed Mr. Bush's 3.5-million-vote
victory as a mandate, the poll found that Americans are
at best ambivalent about Mr. Bush's plans to reshape Social
Security, rewrite the tax code, cut taxes and appoint
conservative judges to the bench. There is continuing
disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq,
with a plurality now saying it was a mistake to invade
in the first place."
Burying
the lede seems to be a genetic predisposition among New
York Times reporters. This time, Nagourney and Elder
ladle on eight paragraphs of honey before slipping their
readers the bitter pill:
And
even after this tense and vituperative campaign, 56 percent
said they were generally optimistic about the next four
years under Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush's job approval rating has
now inched up to 51 percent, the highest it has been since
March.
I'm
not suggesting this poll is full of fantastic news for President
Bush. It has some good and some bad. But there's a difference
between reporting the numbers straight - which is what CBS
News did, to their credit - and constructing an article
to present the numbers in the worst possible light. That's
not objective reporting, it's an instinctive, reflexive
bias against the President. And while it may serve as a
nice piece of therapy for reporters in the New York
Times newsroom, it doesn't serve the paper's reputation
or its readers very well at all. - T. Bevan
7:30 am Link
| Email |
Send
to a Friend
