Attila the Pun
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Aaah AP, you've done it again
To continue our series of looking at how the media is reporting the debates in the US election, lets now turn to the Cheney/Edwards debate.
This Reuters/AFP/AP story quotes Edwards seven times (though one quote is repeated) Cheney? Three.
How about paragraphs? 4 to Cheney, 8 to Edwards. But who won the actual debate you ask? The article doesn't declare a winner, but curiously include this:
The face-off between the two vice presidential candidates took on added importance after President George W Bush's uneven performance against Democratic challenger John Kerry last week.
Hmm, so they are happy to call last week a win for Kerry, but nothing about this one? Would it be uncharitable to suggest that this means Cheney gave Edwards a towelling? If it was close, or if Edwards had come out on top, who honestly doesnt believe that this would have rated a mention?
Now check out Marian Wilkinson's 'report':
There was no trace of the scowling, growling candidate who scared children during last week's presidential debate when he faced his rival John Kerry and came off second best.
Where does she get this crap? Where was the growling? What children is she referring to? (infantile SMH readers do not count)
In an unbelievable reversal, a Gallup Poll taken after the presidential debate has Mr Bush and Senator Kerry in a dead heat. Just a week ago, the same poll put Mr Bush so far ahead - by eight points - that Democrat supporters accused the polling company of bias, citing the owner's ties with evangelical Christians.
She doesn't point out how stupid that now makes these "democrat supporters" look, or state which position we should take seriously - has Kerry had a stunning reversal, or is Gallup a hopelessly compromised god-bothering organisation whose results we should ignore? Oh, I get it, we ignore them if they show Bush in front, but if they show a Kerry revival, then we should report breathlessly on a "unbelievable reversal"
While Mr Bush's campaign strategists are now saying the tightening race is "no surprise", the truth is they are thrown by Senator Kerry's comeback in the polls.
Got any proof for that Marian, any quotes from strategists to back up your assertion about the 'truth'?
A week ago, Mr Bush's political right-hand man, Karl Rove, dubbed "boy genius" by the President, was telling the conservative Washington Times that Senator Kerry was on the run and the battleground state of Ohio was about to fall to Mr Bush. The campaign there, he said, was as "strong as an acre of garlic".
But the *truth* is that he is thrown right?
But on the night of the presidential debate, it was Mr Bush who was on the defensive.
Again - proof?
And when Mr Rove tried to tell reporters that Mr Bush had turned in a solid performance and Senator Kerry had put in his "worst", he was met with incredulity. One reporter asked, "Can you say that with a straight face?"
Bingo! There you go - the group of anti-Bush reporters that Marian is hanging out with think that Bush did terribly, and that his strategists are running scared, ergo, that is the truth. This really has got beyond a joke.
Comments: Post a Comment