The New York Times’ coverage of the Texas and Ohio contests reflect their desire to report a good story, which sometimes comes at the expense of portraying accurate expectations. The Times's coverage of Clinton's “Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio” portrays Clinton as an underdog come back from the dead, while failing to mention that she, only two weeks before, led in both states by huge margins. The Times also fails to mention substantive dialogue that have been taking place over the past day for the primary, nor does it address the endorsements, especially in Ohio, who helped propel Clinton to victory. Finally, Obama gained ultimately one more delegates in Texas, rendering the headline “Big Wins” not only misleading, but actually false. The Stump’s coverage of the two primaries was surprisingly less insightful than usual, at showing the writers are less focused on horse race than the mainstream media and more focused on substance. The Stump’s content largely consisted of speculation as to who would win where, by how much, and why.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/politics/05primary.html?scp=3&sq=texas+and+ohio&st=nyt
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?scp=7&sq=texas+and+ohio&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/05/hillary-wins-texas.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/latinos.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/over-there.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/stop-the-madness.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/two-things-to-keep-in-mind-about-texas.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/the-day-after.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/where-today-will-leave-us.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/03/does-hillary-want-to-lose-the-texas-caucuses.aspx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment