NYT Public Editor Ponders Overconfidence in Obama Victory

So how confident are some at the New York Times in an election victory by Barack Obama? According to a column by the Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, extremely overconfident bordering on certitude as you can read (emphasis mine):

“IT’S OVER,” wrote Charles M. Blow on the Op-Ed page of The Times 15 days ago. “I’ve studied the polls and the electoral map for months, and I no longer believe that John McCain can win.” Blow allowed as how a serious mistake by Barack Obama, the re-emergence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or a national security emergency could change the outlook, but he said he was so sure of his prediction that, if wrong, “I’ll take my crow with a six pack of Liquid-Plumr.”

Hoyt wonders if the Times and much of the rest of the mainstream media are premature in basically calling victory for Obama:

Now that is confidence. But could it be misplaced? My Washington Redskins, 4-1 three weeks ago, were so heavily favored to beat the St. Louis Rams, a team winless and in disarray, that it seemed almost pointless to play the game. The Rams won.

If McCain somehow pulls off a similar upset, Blow will have plenty of company on the chow line for crow. (Let’s forget the Liquid-Plumr.)

A recent Newsweek cover story explored “How a President Obama Might Govern a Center-Right Nation.” New York magazine’s cover last week carried the headline, “January 20th 2009: What an Obama presidency would look like.” NBC’s political director, Chuck Todd, dismissed McCain’s chances this way last week: “It does seem like it’s an uphill climb that’s just too steep.” Within the Republican Party and the conservative movement, the recriminations have already begun.

For reporters and editors at The Times responsible for news about the election — as opposed to opinions, like Blow’s — this is a tricky time. They have to walk a careful line, reporting what appears to be current reality without predicting an outcome that nobody can be certain of, no matter what polls indicate. A lot is at stake: the newspaper’s credibility and voters’ right to decide the winner without being discouraged by coverage suggesting that the result is inevitable.

Oh, NOW you figure this out. Much of the news media has been suggesting that it is completely futile to vote for McCain because of the inevitability of President Dewey, uh, I mean Obama.

The Times and other news media got burned once before this year, in the New Hampshire primary. The coverage, reflecting respected polls and what reporters thought they saw on the ground, strongly suggested that Obama, fresh from victory in the Iowa caucuses, was going to defeat Hillary Clinton. The Times published a front-page article on the day of the voting that reported on a possible shake-up in the Clinton campaign staff and quoted an unnamed supporter as saying, “We’re all resolved to the probability that she’s not going to win New Hampshire, and the mood has turned very despondent — fatalistic, probably.” Two days later, the newspaper was asking how pollsters and news organizations failed to see the Clinton victory coming.

It sure sounds like the Times hasn't learned their lesson.

Now, Times editors and reporters say they are well aware of the danger of getting too far in front of events. Still, I think the coverage over time has created a strong expectation of an Obama victory and a Democratic sweep in Congress. If it does not happen, The Times and many other news organizations will have a lot of explaining to do.

And crow to eat and Liquid Plumr to drink. It's actually worth standing on the voting line for hours just to help see that Charles M. Blow "enjoy" that particular dinner.

Best not to join Blow on his limb. As Abramson, a former Washington bureau chief, told me, “What I know from politics is anything can happen.”