[**UPDATE below**] The Los Angeles Times is still fighting for their man, Barack Obama. Last June, when their man's poll numbers looked groovy, the Times proudly trumpeted their presidential poll results with a just-the-facts headline, "Obama holds 12-point lead over McCain, poll finds." But now the paper's candidate of choice is in trouble. A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll shows John McCain and Barack Obama in a statistical dead heat, with Obama ahead 45% to 43%, within the three point margin of error.
So how does the Times frame the results of their new poll? "Barack Obama's image suffers amid John McCain attacks, poll finds" (see UPDATE below). Apparently, the Times has a hard time acknowledging that people are simply learning more about the candidates, and more are simply deciding that Obama is not their guy. The Times would rather blame Obama's receding lead on "attacks" by McCain.
The Times also conveniently ignores the fact that the DNC and Obama have engaged in "attacks" of their own, including the labeling of Senator McCain as "Exxon John" and equating a McCain presidency to "Bush's third term."
A double standard in headlines? Absolutely.
We've reported on the Times's ongoing love affair with Barack Obama several times before: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
+_+_+_+_+_+
UPDATE, 8/20/08, 7:15 AM PDT: I awoke this morning to find the Times had changed the headline to a more honest, more neutral one: "Obama and McCain in a statistical tie." Isn't that much better?
Also, the Times has published another article this morning (Wed. 8/20/08), "Obama ratchets up negative advertising." It looks like the Times actually is acknowledging that Obama is performing "attacks" of his own. The article begins:
Sen. Barack Obama, under persistent attack from his Republican rival, is intensifying his own negative ad campaign targeting Sen. John McCain in key battleground states.
In the last two weeks, the Obama campaign has aired at least eight new TV and radio ads accusing McCain of failing to protect U.S. jobs, favoring oil companies and turning a blind eye to the economic suffering of working-class Americans.
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I love watching/reading the
August 19, 2008 - 22:16 ET by bigtimerI love watching/reading the leftists desperation tactics....better than any long running soapy mixed in with a comedy show.
I just can't wait to see the men in little white coats and stretchers coming to take them away....
Pass the pop-corn...gonna' get much better as time moves forward.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I'd love to see a poll that was after the debate
August 19, 2008 - 22:33 ET by Dee BunkI don't know if enough people watched it though and if they got the media summary all they heard was "Obama answered in detailed thoughtful responses while McCain gave abrupt short answers". The media thought that was enough info to give their audience.
Still I'd be curious.
Dee... I said the same
August 19, 2008 - 22:43 ET by bigtimerDee...
I said the same thing too...funny that there weren't any instant polls after the show...
Not.
If Obama would of won instead of sinking so badly we would of seen polls somewhere with the talking heads...while they breathlessly blathered on and on with glee.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
I saw it bt
August 19, 2008 - 22:50 ET by Cool ArrowI watched that presentation three times and was blown away that anybody thought Obama spoke clearly, much less thoughtfully, in any part of it. I finally erased it tonight after watching it again.
He was not artful in his dodging, and completely vague in his responses.
Rope-a-dope, pure and simple.
McCain was great.
I ♣ my seal
Full frontal assult
August 19, 2008 - 22:20 ET by CobraManThe LA Times is wrong in their assessment. McCain not merely attacking Obama as all politicians do that, including Obama. McCain’s using a full frontal assault against him. And it's working! Sweet!
That's what Obama gets for going toe to toe with a Veteran! Heh.
We laugh at this...
August 19, 2008 - 22:33 ET by unkeeafWe laugh at this stuff through gritted teeth, but twisted information like this absolutely sways many undecided voters. The MSM knows it and takes advantage of the public trust in an effort to get their man elected.
Right out of the Mussolini handbook. Ugly, but effective.
MSM = PR firm for the Democrat Party
Terrified
August 19, 2008 - 22:57 ET by Logic over emotionI don't know about anyone else but I'm terrified of the journalism we see today.
Obama says me too!
August 19, 2008 - 22:36 ET by jaywlAt the VFW Obama spent an inordinate amount of time establishing his bono fides in national security and patriotism. He can't point to anything he has done, unless he would talk up organizing the Projects and marching a group of housewives to City Hall. He can't even use his parents. Or the African paternal grandparents. Maternal grandparents and uncles somewhere do the trick (after straightening out who did what where). Then he declared again that NO ONE had better question his patriotism! He won't stand for it, and by the way if someone questions anything else--programs, the wife, etc--he might be a racist. The LAT has just picked up the water bucket and is following directions.
So why are Goldilocks conservatives saying sit this one out?
August 19, 2008 - 22:59 ET by nwahsAfter hearing yet another Goldilocks conservative on Sean Hannity today touting his book "None of the Above" I have to ask, why is no one asking these advocates of defeat, "wouldn't sitting out just empower the liberal media?"
I'm getting real tired of pseudo conservatives expecting to repeat the circumstances of the Reagan revolution guaranteeing another conservative revolution. If you take 4 musicians, grow their hair long, pump them with amphetamine , and tour them through Germany, you think you are guaranteed the BeatlesII? Its as much folly to think an Obama presidency would inspire another conservative revolution. The world doesn't work like a machine, and it is the utmost in arrogance to believe we know all the nuances that inspired the Reagan revolution. So arrogant that some conservatives want to give the election to Obama???
Isn't idiocy contradictory to conservatism?
1. We need to elect McCain
2. We need to reform the primary system of the Republican party.
Now more Iowa determining the front runners. That's just stupid.
3. We need media accountable to other media on a regular basis. If a network is the tank for a candidate, they should be made to look like fools from all media outlets, not just a few. The media in this country needs reform.
Sitting this election out or giving it to Obama the idiot is not an option.
I'm *not* sitting out this election
August 19, 2008 - 23:04 ET by Free StinkerI'm not planning on voting for McAmnesty, but I'm *not* sitting out this election.
I have a Congressional Rep and a Senatorial candidate that both need my vote!
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
Well you're enabling Obama
August 19, 2008 - 23:13 ET by nwahsWell call it enabling Obama. What are YOU doing to reform the primary system? Or perhaps you are just going to complain next time about the candidates? Oh I know, and Obama Presidency will resurrect Reagan? Do we need oil or candles?
I wasn't aware that the
August 19, 2008 - 23:29 ET by Free StinkerI wasn't aware that the primary system needed reforming.
I voted for Mitt Romney since Fred Thompson had dropped out by the time New Jeresy had our primary.
I do not think that by not voting for McCain we will "resurect Reagan", but I do think RINOs give themselves away by making remarks such as that one.
"They're both doofuses!" --Mark Levin (speaking of Obama and McCain)
We need to elect McCain
August 19, 2008 - 23:04 ET by R D HelmWhy?
-Dave.
Why?
August 19, 2008 - 23:08 ET by nwahsBecause we don't want Americans to experience the indignities abroad as they did when Carter was President. Why do I have to explain that to you?
nwahs, and McCain is going to prevent this how, exactly?
August 19, 2008 - 23:14 ET by R D Helm-Dave.
"attacks," also known as
August 19, 2008 - 23:15 ET by wiwf"attacks," also known as PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNING.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
By not perpetuating the stupid American stereotype at home
August 19, 2008 - 23:19 ET by nwahsBy not perpetuating the stupid American stereotype at home.
By not being a coward.
Again, why do I have to explain this to a conservative?
nwas, on what planet is McCain a conservative?
August 19, 2008 - 23:29 ET by R D HelmBecause I can pretty well guaran-damn-tee you it isn't this one.
I also seem to remember McCain crying a river about the treatment of the "detainees" at GITMO.
And he is even further to the left than is GWB, who fiddled at the Beijing Olympics while Putin blatantly over-ran a US ally, and who is expanding his conquest of same even further as I write this.
-Dave.
Give me one valid reason for allowing Obama to win
August 19, 2008 - 23:36 ET by nwahsYou give me ONE valid reason for a conservative to allow Obama to win. Dont give me some voodoo trash about it will call the new conservative leader from the cosmos. It could just as well send the country into a tailspin. What possible reason could a conservative have to allow Obama to win?
To give the liberal press a false sense of security? WHAT?
NWAHS, one reason
August 19, 2008 - 23:41 ET by jefflebowskiAfter 4 years of Reid, Pelosi and Obama, they will kill the demonrats after screwing the country up to a faretheewell. Reagan needed Carter. The Repubs were in control until they turned into democrats.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Well Reagan aint coming
August 20, 2008 - 00:22 ET by nwahsYou are so sure the country will rebel against an incompetent government? Like they're doing in large numbers against the propaganda media? You know somtimes when you let a sore fester it just festers and gets worse. If you have a chance to make it a little better, you really should.
You think you have a handle on everything that happened to make Reagan the President he was? How did the attempted assassination fit in? Did that in anyway affect his popularity? You honestly believe the dominoes are lined up identically?
You cant tell the future by looking at the past. All you can do is make the best choice available. Taking a bad choice because you suspect you have some "system" of predicting events is neurotic.
nwahs
August 20, 2008 - 00:49 ET by sick_puppyI like your arguments. I’ve been reading NB for almost two years, almost nightly. One thing I’ve observed about posters here, they have very strong opinions and they usually need some strong arguments to affect them. I think the MDS (McCain Derangement Syndrome) needs to be addressed as much as possible. The idea that electing Obama so we can elect a conservative in the WH in 4 yrs is wrong.
Consider the Repub candidates I’ve voted for since I could vote for since 1972
Nixon
Ford
Reagan
Reagan
GHW Bush
GHW Bush
Dole
GW Bush
GW Bush
McCain
Its 36 plus years. How many actual conservatives are on this list?
Still some think magically a conservative savior will appear in 4yrs to save all.
sick puppy
August 20, 2008 - 00:57 ET by Cool ArrowI'll vote for McCain. It will be a vote against Obama.
Does that make my reasoning invalid?
I ♣ my seal
Cool
August 20, 2008 - 01:25 ET by sick_puppyNo your reasoning is not invalid. I’ve done the same thing voting for someone I didn’t really like, Ford, GHW Bush, and Dole. (Dole wasn’t that bad he was just a weak candidate.)
But the idea of not voting for McCain so a new candidate can salvage things in 4 yrs is strange reasoning. Some will vote Obama because they like his policies or whatever, some will not vote for McCain because of MDS which is a vote for Obama even if they like nothing about Obama. Many voted for Perot in 1992 because GHW pi**ed off so many conservatives, which probably is the reason we got Clinton. (almost Voted for Perot myself).
Nothing wrong with it
August 20, 2008 - 01:45 ET by Cool ArrowOur reasons for voting, by the time we reach enfranchisement age, are inconsequential.
The stupidest vote is counted the same as the smartest.
If we have a major bank in the US collapes in the next few months, is it wrong for voters to reconsider their support for McCain because of his involvement with Charles Keating in the Savings and Loan Scandal?
It's all a matter of baggage and the weight we apply to it, at one specific moment in time.
I ♣ my seal
The stupidest vote is counted the same as the smartest.
August 20, 2008 - 02:07 ET by sick_puppyExactly
“If we have a major bank in the US collapse” I live in Arizona. I am well aware of the Lincoln Savings & Loans collapse and the Keating 5 scandal. I followed the hearings closely. I also did business in AZ in the early 1980’s. The economic disaster Cater left us was much much worse.
The choice now is a President Obama or a President McCain.
A protest non-vote for McCain is still a vote for Obama.
I think Obama would be much worse in every way than Carter. I hope some of the diehard MDS’s will see this point.
I just wish we could keep
August 20, 2008 - 02:19 ET by Clear thinkerI just wish we could keep the stupid ones out of the voting booth.
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goal
Great point! How many
August 20, 2008 - 02:33 ET by sick_puppyGreat point!
How many have no idea what is going on?
Scary
But, situation normal. Look at congress.
Charles Keating went to my
August 20, 2008 - 08:23 ET by ksennishCharles Keating went to my high school and funded the schools natatorium! Clean money though, they checked.
Thank you, Jeff.
August 20, 2008 - 23:54 ET by R D HelmWell said. And then some.
Funny the short memories so many have today.
Well, maybe not so funny. :-O
-Dave.
Vote None of the Above in '08!
answer me this mwahs
August 19, 2008 - 23:42 ET by candancePlease give me an answer as it is a serious question.
I agree with you that allowing Obama to win would not awaken some great Republican messiah to save us. But I fail to see how rewarding McCain will cause the GOP to come back to the right, or do anything to embolden conservies from here on out.
Shall we wait until Republicans are voting for Hillary Clinton to stop the next Hugo Chavez?
Is not about rewarding McCain
August 20, 2008 - 00:10 ET by nwahsIts about acting with reason. Obama would be a worse President. Some people here advocating allowing Obama to win, freely admit he would be a worse President. So instead of confronting that idiocy, we stack dominoes and pretend we know how all of them will fall.
Well not me. Thats idiocy. If we allow Obama to win there is only one guarantee, we will without a doubt have a socialistic, pacifist for a President for four years. How the country weathers that is a crap shoot, and anyone pretending to know the outcome is a fool or a charlatan.
nwahs, I'll give you four reasons to let Obama win.
August 20, 2008 - 00:09 ET by R D Helm1) Cap-and-Trade. Both Obama and MCain support this economy-killing insanity.
2) Scamnesty. McCain and Barry-O differ on this how?.
3) McCain-Feingold. Self explanatory, that is.
4) AGW-see #2.
McCain is not a conservative, and will get the blame for the economic downturn that is coming regardless of who wins in November.
Let the dems take the hit for what is coming.
I lived through the Carter years. Trust me, we will all be better off in the long-term.
-Dave.
Here's one
August 19, 2008 - 23:44 ET by Cool ArrowAn end to racism in America forever.
If an African-American man who was abandoned by his father at two years old can make it to the White House, what societal excuse can any one of us offer for our personal failure?
Go to school, work hard, succeed. Any questions?
I ♣ my seal
To end racism is not a
August 20, 2008 - 00:01 ET by nwahsTo end racism is not a logical reason to allow Obama to win. Do you really think it is? How in the world would that work? I live in New Orleans in which almost every position in city government is held by African-Americans. The city is about 72% black. Yet charges of racism are ridiculously common. Our City Council tried to enforce a garbage contract, and the minority owned company accused them of racism. You think race hasn't been center stage during this election? You think Obama's election would stop that powerful rhetoric?
Yes it is nwahs
August 20, 2008 - 00:15 ET by Cool ArrowUnless you can tell me there will be mind readers at every polling booth discerning each and every voter's reasons for their choice, you cannot exclude mine.
Please tell me how, in a private democratic ballot system, my reason for voting Obama is invalid. Will it count for less than one vote?
All reasons are legally valid. And if I vote for Obama because I want the right to point to President Obama as proof of an end to racism, you have no say in the matter.
I ♣ my seal
didn't you hear?
August 19, 2008 - 23:37 ET by candanceMcCain's plans for saving the country include attacking Big Oil and imposing global warming laws on factories.
Thank God we have a real Republican running!
Yeah, i saw that on the
August 20, 2008 - 08:26 ET by ksennishYeah, i saw that on the Olympics coverage this week how McCain plans to go after big oil. All I have to say is WTF?
nwahs
August 19, 2008 - 23:17 ET by RESTLESS 1I agree with you, but if McCain goes with Lieberman on the ticket, I may just have to wave the white flag. I'm a little tired of him defending his "maverick" status and would like to see him defending, or at least employ, a conservative status.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Thats not going to happen
August 19, 2008 - 23:30 ET by nwahsThere is NO evidence McCain wants to change the Republican party. All the weird conspiracy theories rely on some plot by McCain to work the wishes of a Democratic Congress. Its BS. There is no evidence of that, just as there is no evidence a disaster President would lead to good President. I am ashamed that Sean Hannity did not press that author more. Sean Hannity should never again complain about a soft ball interview. He let that author get away with some weird and illogical BS.
It is what it is. Its McCain or Obama and there is a huge difference between the two. I have no doubt there are KOS trolls here, but even they could not give a logical ( stress LOGICAL) reason for a conservative to allow Obama to win. The author on Hannity's program reasoning was to have another conservative revolution. Thats a reason, but its far from logical. Only a fool would expect by simulating events would recreate the outcome in circumstances in life. Life doesn't work like that. Thats Voodoo.
nwahs, McCain doesn't have to change the repuplican party.
August 20, 2008 - 00:25 ET by R D HelmThey are already there.
The republican party began its revolt against true conservatism before Ronald Reagan had even left office.
They have been chasing the dem's leftward lurch ever since.
To Hell with the republican party.
-Dave.
Repulican party has one last chance to win the presidency
August 20, 2008 - 01:42 ET by Daniel Baker2008 is the last chance mccain or obama will import the democrat voting base soon. I would just like to have four more years of pro values leadership in the whitehouse
John McCain 2008 Protect Traditional Marriage
Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" Obama.
Just as I began to read
August 20, 2008 - 07:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberJust as I began to read this piece, NPR radio just announced McCain forging ahead of The Hopeful Changer in the latest poll. The reason? McCain's attacks on Obama, of course!
McCain is now considered better-equipped to handle the economy.
Why? McCain's attacks on Obama, of course!