What is the New York Times’s problem? The day after the Iowa caucuses, the front-page headline was
OBAMA TAKES IOWA
IN BIG TURNOUT;
HUCKABEE VICTOR
This morning, it’s
CLINTON IS VICTOR,
DEFEATING OBAMA;
McCAIN ALSO WINS
Yes, Clinton’s win was a surprise, and therefore more “newsy” than McCain’s win. But Obama’s and Huckabee’s wins last week were both newsworthy and yet the headline made Huckabee’s win seem like an afterthought.
I’m sorry, but hiring Bill Kristol while openly rooting for Democrats on your front page is not what “balance” means.
Actually, I think McCain’s win in New Hampshire is JUST as noteworthy as Clinton’s. He came from a fourth place finish in Iowa to defeat the party’s current national standard bearing religious wacko AND the inexplicably popular former governor of a neighbouring state.
The post-Iowa headline is a bit more understandable, given that the Obama/Clinton race has been much closer, and with Huckabee gaining momentum for weeks (and his positioning of himself as the new Bush was bound to play well in the midwest and south).
Someone does need to call a meeting at the TIMES though to discuss the post-NH headlines. The paper of record in this town at least needs to maintain the APPEARANCE of neutrality, even though everyone knows it’s a liberal bastion.
I’ll argue the contrary- newspapers for a long time were partisan instruments- why shouldn’t the Times just admit it? British papers are still partisan, and it doesn’t hurt their credibility too much. If the Times can’t separate the partisanship of the editorial page from the news hole, then they should just give up the ghost of neutrality. At least the WSJ keeps the news stories balanced and saves the political slant for the editorial page.
I will take a bit different view as I do not see a political slant to the headlines, but instead a news judgment being made. As a former news broadcaster on radio, I know that there are often many debates along these lines.
In Iowa the Obama win WAS the news. An African American had won the Iowa Caucus. That was not only the lead headline in the Times, but also around the globe. While Huckabee was the GOP winner, there was much polling data to suggest that this would be the case, and so less of a surprise. Built into every headline also is a bit of ‘forward-leaning’ (my words) for how the next news cycle might change the story. Since everyone knew that New Hampshire would be totally different than Iowa for Huckabee, I think that the headline was appropriate. It was a win in Iowa…but did not mean much in real poltical terms. That is not a political slant, as much as politcal fact, given the demographics in the Granite State.
In New Hampshire the tense drama was not with McCain or the GOP for several hours Tuesday night. Instead the Democratic fight WAS the story. Within minutes of the polls closing a 8% gap was made by John over Mitt and it was pretty much over. I think the healdine reflects the fight in the days leading up to the balloting, and the hours that followed the closing of the polls.
Indeed, especially as Bill Kristol is such a twit that he makes consevatives all look like morons. His first column was a joke. Remember William Safire? He was wrong, a lot, but at least he could write.