The New York Times's attempt to insinuate a romantic relationship between John McCain and a lobbyist has apparently backfired. In a poll released today by Rasmussen Reports, the American public holds a strongly negative view of the story and of the paper that released it:
Just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. Forty-four percent (44%) have an unfavorable opinion and 31% are not sure. The paper’s ratings are much like a candidate’s and divide sharply along partisan and ideological lines.
By a 50% to 18% margin, liberal voters have a favorable opinion of the paper. By a 69% to 9%, conservative voters offer an unfavorable view. The newspaper earns favorable reviews from 44% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 17% of those not affiliated with either major political story.
The Times recently became enmeshed in controversy over an article published concerning John McCain. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the nation’s likely voters say they have followed that story at least somewhat closely.
Of those who followed the story, 66% believe it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign. Just 22% believe the Timeswas simply reporting the news. Republicans, by an 87% to 9% margin, believe the paper was trying to hurt McCain’s chances of winning the White House. Democrats are evenly divided.
The Times's story may have actually made things better for McCain. Rasmussen had him behind before it was released but now has him ahead of Barack Obama.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator and editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I have never purchased a
February 28, 2008 - 00:10 ET by lnthompI have never purchased a copy of the NYT, and at most I might read 2 or 3 articles from it per year.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Yeah glad to see the NYTs
February 28, 2008 - 00:16 ET by bigtimerYeah glad to see the NYTs down...but I always am glad to see this news...glad Cunningham stuck it to the NYTs too for McCain...for all the thanks that got him.
At least it has been replayed over and over on the msm and hits the NYTs right in the face every single time they repeat it...so I thank Cunningham just for that fact alone.
The enemy within at least gets it from a guy who was speaking for a lot of us out here regarding this fire starter of a worthless paper...who has hurt us endlessly every chance they get when it comes to our fight against the terrorists...regardless of whose life they have put in danger.
I hope they sink until the bottom is about to fall out beneath them.
NY Times
February 28, 2008 - 00:27 ET by jefflebowskiI stopped getting news from the MSM and newspapers years ago. Why read papers who only give the liberal slant?
I find myself better informed than ever.
"The man who reads nothing
February 28, 2008 - 16:21 ET by Edhenry"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers"
Thomas Jefferson
Wow! ratings lower than the
February 28, 2008 - 01:38 ET by ziplinedownWow! ratings lower than the presidents? There is only one answer.........
Impeach the new york times!!
Canceled
February 28, 2008 - 03:33 ET by Jerry MackI was a subscriber of the LAT for many years. Several years ago I was unable to tell the difference between the editorial pages and the front page. I canceled the subscription. Hopefully the subscribers of the NYT will do like wise.
THE NEW YORK SLIMES...
February 28, 2008 - 08:53 ET by danybhoyThe NYT is at 24%, still too high for me. I guess I won't be happy untill the Old Grey Lady is defunct. This rag is damaging America & should only be used to line your bird cage.
"Some of us are wise, some of us are otherwise" Mark Levin
One thing I wonder about is
February 28, 2008 - 09:55 ET by KillgraveOne thing I wonder about is why the NYT timed the story as it did. If they really wanted to stick it to McCain, they would've sat on it until October.
Assuming this story had any legs, which it didn't, McCain still would've had plenty of time to diffuse it between now and November.
Think about that moron Dan Rather and his fake Killian memos. He deliberately waited until September to try to derail Bush in 2004.
What gives?
The report on the report
February 28, 2008 - 10:44 ET by KC MulvilleAs I hear it, this story had been circulating under the surface for a while. Obviously, McCain knew about it long ago, and had been lobbying Bill Keller (NYT editor) to dump the story. Drudge referred to it a month or two ago, but didn't offer details. The, apparently, other news outlets were going to challenge the NYTimes to either publish it or release it. Backed into a take it or leave it, the NYTimes published it.
The story is largely based on interviews with ex-staffers. They were part of McCain's "reorganization" effort last summer, when he dumped a lot of staff (and his prospects began to improve dramatically). Those aggrieved staffers started blabbing, and that's where this "story" came from.
Suppose you had a campaign (say, Hillary's) where the internal staff were at odds with one another. Let's suppose things were going badly, and Hillary dumped Howard Wolfson and brought in James Carville. You could bet the house that Wolfson would look for a willing and sympathetic reporter to leak out Wolfson's side of the struggle. That's clearly what's happening with the McCain story. The losers are complaining, and since it serves the NYTimes' agenda, they dressed it up as a "news story."
By the way, how long will it be before we see the inevitable whining about who's to blame for Hillary's wreckage?
Thanks, KC. This explains a
February 28, 2008 - 11:18 ET by KillgraveThanks, KC. This explains a lot. It makes sense, given their track record, that the NYT would rather take an ill-timed, totally half-*ssed cheap shot than no trick at all.
Pathetic.
Goodbye N.Y.T
February 28, 2008 - 12:09 ET by American TaxpayerI have made many comments against the N.Y.T now all I can say after I told you so is, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.........
I love it!!! Polls on the
February 28, 2008 - 12:52 ET by Ryan Mc.I love it!!! Polls on the people who quote polls daily as sooo important. I want to hear them respond to those numbers. That puts them about as popular as congress.
I'm really cheered by the
February 28, 2008 - 22:19 ET by Republic1I'm really cheered by the news that so many people actually get that the NYT is a poor excuse for a paper. It's role as the official mouthpiece for the American Socialist Party (aka the Democratic Party) apparently hasn't gone unnoticed.
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." -Muhammad
I actually do subscribe to
February 28, 2008 - 23:51 ET by lnthompI actually do subscribe to a liberal daily paper, known to Lars Larson listeners as the "Dead Fish Wrapper" and to local host Victoria Taft as "The Zero". I get the "Oregonian" daily for a subscription rate of $8.66/month. My wife clips coupons on Sundays and Thursdays, and I read the Sunday comics and occasionally the daily comics. Sometimes we'll read something from the front page, and then it goes in the recycle bin. The coupons are worth much more than $8.66/month, but I don't think the subscription fee I'm paying even covers the cost of delivery. We got that as a special "promotional rate" almost 2 years ago, and it hasn't changed yet.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain