Nagourney, John Kerry, John McCain and Piss Poor MSM Reporting

Adam Nagourney, John Kerry, John McCain and Piss Poor MSM Reporting
May 12th, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

The Gang of 500 and D.C.’s insider chattering class was rocked by a subtext of New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney’s recent analysis of President Bush’s woeful poll numbers (Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet, May 10, 2006).

But, tucked inside the Nagourney opus was the bombshell that “The political situation has not helped some of the more prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush’s opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election. And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush’s more vocal critics.”

MORE & LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2965

to fight this misrepresentation of the polling data. Those who are looking for an excuse to attack Kerry seize upon this information. I am surprised about Maureen Doud though. I thought she was better than this. I guess she is in the Senator Clinton camp too.

She never seemed to like Kerry and she really had no use for Gore. I guess they didn't amuse her or something - as she never had concrete reasons why.

Who would take their opinion seriously if they had anything positive to say? No no, the sophisticated liberal elites are too intelligent to be taken in by pandering politicos and mere mortals.

Look at me, aren't I so smart flying up here, above it all, shitting up the entire world that wouldn't have me if I were to try to participate in it anyway.

I am really liking these people less and less every day.

of the liberal lady in Tay Tay's stories (if they were filmed). With due appologies to Tay Tay, if she sees her has a mismatch for the role.

Maureen Dowd and a lot of other so-called liberal commentators make a nice living by having nothing good to say about anyone. They hate John Kerry because he is like them only he never acquired their cynicism and narcissism. Kerry actually still believes that it's possible to make a difference in life and that beliefs matter. If columnists ever actally believed in anything they would no longer be able to wallow in 'being right but martyred.'

The professional cynics can't have that. It would invalidate their lives. If someone actually makes a difference and does some actual good in the world, it is like a repudiation of their whole lives. They are shadow people, condemned to only follow and mimic those who actually do things.

but it would be deleted and i would likely be banned if i posted it on here.

shitty ass reporters. how the fuck do the editors allow these fuckers to get away with this shit ?

The NYT endorsed Kerry but was pretty unfair to him through the entire campaign.

The Boston Globe gave him a lot of bad press but endorsed. The editorial staff makes the endorsements the reports report the news. The columnists opine their own opinions. people need to sort out the truth these days. Actually it's always been like this, just hard for us seeing JK get unfair press.

I'm reading Jonathan Alter's book about FDR, The Defining Moment, FDR went through the same thing.

we don't have real news anymore, you know the facts given straight up , you decide. We have opinionated news and that is the problem, there is no we report, you decide.

Time Magazine refereed to the book in a Bush piece,but when I read it my jaw dropped while reading about Roosevelt's difficulties with the party and how they tried to prevent him from gaining the nomination in 1932. They considered him too flexible, a straddler. "Roosevelt wasn't big on excuse-making". This also sounds like Kerry.
Anyway, I can't wait to get through the book.

I've seen more than a few things referenced that remind me of JK and the campaign, and although ALter has been writing in Newsweek that Bush should take note of the lessons of FDR, I think those lessons are way over Bush's head but I also get there is a message to Dems in the book. I'm hoping to find time to post a review this weekend.

Here is the permalink:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/05/bush_still_beat.html

Your entry is a great critique of that sloppy article, and then it will show up on anyone who looks at his blog. Unfortunately, it's a couple of days old; but, just in case, it would be a nice contrary view that would only be a click away for readers.

I added a link to this on my post!

Atrios reports further on the Newsweek poll results (as received by email) showing the “Favorable/unfavorable ratings of national dems”:


Hillary 53/42
Dean 33/36
Edwards 49/24
Gore 49/43
Kennedy 43/45
Kerry 49/40

Yesterday I noted here that the recent NY Times poll, and the piss poor reporting by Adam Nagourney, that claimed that Bush had a higher favorability rate than John Kerry.

We looked into the favorability ratings from several recent polls to understand why there are such differences between the New York Times/CBS News rating and other recent ratings.

The key difference Adam Nagourney doesn’t bother telling you? The big caveat Adam Nagourney is afraid to tell you?

The inclusion of an “undecided” option in the New York Times/CBS News poll, an option most other polls do not have.

The Newsweek results fall in line with the April Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll that reported “Unhappiness with Bush is so pervasive that 49 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry if the 2004 presidential election were held today, to 39 percent who say they would vote for the president.”

More & Links - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2976

Hey Nagourney, Why Write?
May 14th, 2006 @ 6:50 pm

Adam Nagourney to crown prince of piss poor reporting, is at it again in today’s NY Times. Today, Nagourney opines in his latest article lacking journalistic integrity, “Hey Democratc, Why Win?”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2984