The LA Times makes excuses for Obama's poll decline

Dave Pierre of Newsbusters catches the Los Angeles Times playing defense for Obama, explaining away his sharp decline in their own poll by blaming "attacks" by McCain, as opposed to the candidate's own poor performance, his arrogance or the public seeing through his vaporous rhetoric.

...how does the Times frame the results of their new poll? "Barack Obama's image suffers amid John McCain attacks, poll finds." Apparently, the Times has a hard time acknowledging that people are simply learning more about the candidates, and more are simply deciding that Obama is not their guy. The Times would rather blame Obama's receding lead on "attacks" by McCain.

The Times also conveniently ignores the fact that the DNC and Obama have engaged in "attacks" of their own, including the labeling of Senator McCain as "Exxon John" and equating a McCain presidency to "Bush's third term."

One would think that a newspaper whose circulation and advertising are tanking might wise up about driving away readers with such obvious bias. The Obama campaign may believe such rationalizations, but that only hurts its ability to compete for votes.

Hat tip: David Paulin
Dave Pierre of Newsbusters catches the Los Angeles Times playing defense for Obama, explaining away his sharp decline in their own poll by blaming "attacks" by McCain, as opposed to the candidate's own poor performance, his arrogance or the public seeing through his vaporous rhetoric.

...how does the Times frame the results of their new poll? "Barack Obama's image suffers amid John McCain attacks, poll finds." Apparently, the Times has a hard time acknowledging that people are simply learning more about the candidates, and more are simply deciding that Obama is not their guy. The Times would rather blame Obama's receding lead on "attacks" by McCain.

The Times also conveniently ignores the fact that the DNC and Obama have engaged in "attacks" of their own, including the labeling of Senator McCain as "Exxon John" and equating a McCain presidency to "Bush's third term."

One would think that a newspaper whose circulation and advertising are tanking might wise up about driving away readers with such obvious bias. The Obama campaign may believe such rationalizations, but that only hurts its ability to compete for votes.

Hat tip: David Paulin