The Old York Times: Still keeping New Yorkers clueless

May 15, 2012
By

It buried that bad-for-Obama poll:

Though the poll receives an A1 billing in the national edition, the story is below the fold on the 17th page of today’s New York edition.

The Times’s previous four monthly polls this year have all received A1 billings in the New York edition, and usually an A17 article, too (on the second page of their inside “National” section). Surely the Times should give better placement to Americans’ opinion of our president, as their editorial board put it, “[taking] the moral high ground on what may be the great civil rights struggle of our time”?

Further, one should never make too much of a single poll, but one finding was truly surprising and doesn’t receive any mention at all: Romney leads Obama among women, 46 to 44, erasing the somewhat substantial gender gap from April’s equivalent poll (Obama 49, Romney 43), and overall, leads the president 46 points to 43.

In their 19-paragraph, 1,129-word analysis, the Times doesn’t deign to mention the female cross-tab number.

The last time I read a dead-tree newspaper, I was a child. But I’m guessing putting something on “A17″ means that most of the fossils who still read the dead-tree Old York Times won’t know about the poll.

Barney Stinson:

“What do you expect? You’re going to meet a cute travel agent when you’re reading a newspaper at a bookstore? None of those things exist anymore.”

2 Responses to The Old York Times: Still keeping New Yorkers clueless

  1. Bizman on May 15, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    LOL, if I had a dollar for every time Faux news ignored or “buried” a story critical of a Republican I’d be in RICH!

  2. Roger Ailes on May 15, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Faux news ignored or “buried” a story critical of a Republican

    Call me brilliant. I get the conservative sheep to cry whaaaa over the liberal msm, while keeping them quiet suckling on Fox News teat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *