More media BS.

[mauser]

OK, this is a news story, but I'm posting it as a tribute to how some in the media business spew their BS in the form of inaccurate or incomplete statements that they may try to pass off as an innocent oversight.
About half way through the article is a statement. It's one sentence, and it amazes me that it could get from the writer through the publisher or editor or whomever is responsible for "factual" or "accurate" reporting.
I have the sentence highlighted, not that it would be too difficult to spot if I didn't highlight it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200..._politico/9617

David Paul Kuhn Tue Apr 15, 10:46 AM ET

Barack Obama’s “bitter” comment may have had little immediate impact in the Democratic primary race in Pennsylvania, according to a poll out this morning.

The Quinnipiac University poll found that Hillary Clinton leads Obama 50 to 44 percent, a margin unchanged since the organization's last statewide poll at the beginning of the month.

The unchanged margin does not come as a great surprise. Obama’s remark was made public Friday afternoon, leaving only two days to permeate the public.

The poll, conducted Wednesday through Sunday night, revealed no noticeable shift in support for polling done on Saturday or Sunday. It is the first indication that Obama’s controversial remark may not dramatically change the head-to-head match-up in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next Tuesday.

Clinton has long enjoyed a significantly larger portion of white working class and rural support, the same Democratic voters most likely to take issue with his comments at a San Francisco fundraiser April 6 that small town Americans economic struggle leads them to feel “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment.”

Clinton wins those Pennsylvania Democrats who once supported Ronald Reagan, 55 to 40 percent, according to the poll.

Only Democrats can vote in Pennsylvania’s primary. Polling has already indicated that Obama’s statement is unpopular within the larger public but it has primarily offended moderates and conservatives.

A strong majority of Americans, 56 percent according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday, disagree with Obama’s “bitter” remark.

But Rasmussen also found that a plurality of politically liberal voters, 46 percent, agree with Obama’s remark while a third disagree. A slim majority of moderate voters, 51 percent, disagree while 27 percent agree. Not surprisingly, three in four conservatives disagree with Obama’s comment but only 12 percent agree.

The negative sentiment expressed by moderates is likely to concern Obama’s campaign looking ahead to a possible general election matchup against John McCain. Obama owes a significant portion of his victories to the support of moderates and independents.

In the near term, however, Democrats have larger concerns about sowing up their base. The Quinnipiac poll has found that 26 percent of Clinton supporters would back McCain if Obama won the Democratic nomination, while 19 percent of Obama’s supporters would switch to McCain if Clinton won. The findings mimic national polls conducted last month, illustrating the durable divisions caused by the prolonged and at time bitter primary race.

The Gallup Organization found in polling conducted nationally from March 7 to the 22nd that should Obama win the nomination 28 percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain, while 19 percent of Obama’s supporters said they would vote for McCain if Clinton won.

The Quinnipiac survey of 2,103 likely Democratic primary voters, an unusually large sample size particularly for a statewide poll, found that Clinton is strongest in the more rural west while Obama’s strength continues to be centered around Philadelphia.

There also continue to be mirror results based on education level, considered a strong indicator of economic class. Clinton wins those without a college degree, 54 to 39 percent, while Obama wins those with at least a college degree, 57 to 39 percent. The racial divisions also persist. Obama is winning nearly nine in ten blacks while Clinton is winning nearly six in ten whites.
************************************************** ******

I'm sure that he was making reference to the fact that only democrats can vote for either Hillary or Obama in Pa., in some states you don't have to vote within your party in the primaries.
I know for a fact that there are people who would skip voting in the primary if they read that sentence. I've had too many people ask me why there's only a Democratic primary in our state.
I've explained that the media focus is on the presidential candidates, and the hot race is in the Democratic party, but the Republicans can vote for their choice of candidates too, and there are more positions up for vote than President. Just because the media is focusing on the Democratic candidates for President doesn't mean that it's the only race.

[/RANT]

[NY Refugee]

What do you expect, the media want Obama elected and they are willing to distort, omit, or change facts and statements to support their agenda

[er2006]

What do you expect, the media want Obama elected and they are willing to distort, omit, or change facts and statements to support their agenda

True, the media are trying to sell newsprint and so therefore print what will be eye catching , doesn't need to be true just eye catching.

[schr8er2000]

And what happens to us dumb-ass Republicans >??? dont we have ANY say in this election....

WHY cant we vote.... maybe to add a write-in .... or show support for McCain ???

ANOTHER rip off by the Damocrats


AGAIN

[slicknick131]

I've been registered as an independent since I was 18 and changed my political affiliation just so I could vote in this primary.

And, plainly put: the mass media sucks.

I did my undergrad honors thesis on the differences in coverage of the war on terror between Al-Jeezera and the NY Times. And differences I found!

[MrUgly]

Let him know what you think.

http://www.politico.com/reporters/DavidPaulKuhn.html

What I wrote:

"Only Democrats can vote in Pennsylvania’s primary.""

What kind of garbage reporting is that? Only Democrats can vote? Do you have any idea how the election process works in Pennsylvania, or is this just a really, really bad job of editing?

[er2006]

They know what they are doing, they are in the disinformation business. I do not believe a word that is printed in any newspaper . Read the National Review for the unvarnished truth.

[mauser]

Here's the comment I sent to him, I encourage everyone to follow the link posted above by MrUgly and send your comments as well, it only takes a few moments.
Please take the high road and try to be reasonably polite.
Here's the message I sent to him.

What's with the sentence "Only Democrats can vote in Pennsylvania’s primary" that you published on Tuesday 4/15/08 in the article titled "Penn race unchanged by Obama remark"? Are you hoping to promote your own political agenda by trying to confuse people, or are you the one who is confused?
I'll not give any credibility to ant news item that I see with the names "Politico" or "David Paul Kuhn" unless I see a retraction and an apology published just as visibly as that original "news story", and even then I'll have to be skeptical about it.

Here is his first reply to me:

Penn is a closed primary

And my reply to that blurb:

Does that mean that Republicans don't have the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidates in any race?
Your statement " Only Democrats can vote in Pennsylvania’s primary" clearly indicates that you believe that Republicans shouldn't bother to show up at the polls.

*************************************
I'm still waiting for a response to that one.