What amazes me most about the Politico is that some people still take it seriously. These people are hacks. They’re cheering for McCain to win and only write articles about McCain’s rivals if they can attack those rivals. In blogposts people are free to do that, in op-ed as well, but they present it as objective reports. Here’s a clear example.
How does the Politico refer to Romney’s performance on Saturday? Right, as a “loss.” “Romney, Edwards use shows to spin losses.” Pardon me? Losses? How did Romney lose? He didn’t focus on South Carolina, he wanted to win Nevada instead. And he did so. Bigtime. He collected more delegates than any of his competitors on that day. Again: how does that make him a loser?
This isn’t about letting your biases influence your reporting, this is very clearly writing with an agenda in mind. Note that they refer to Obama and Clinton as “winners,” which isn’t possible since only one of them won. McCain is the winner according to the Politico, and they even seem to imply that Huckabee is somewhat of a winner… while Romney is the loser.
That’s absolutely amazing. Anyone with a bit of knowledge about politics knows that Romney was a moderate winner, McCain big winner at least in perception, Huckabee the loser since he had to win SC, and Clinton was a winner as well, while Obama now has to win in South Carolina.
The hacks at the Politico should keep this up though; it won’t be long before they’ll be dismissed by any- and everyone.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Romney would have won Nevada even if he didnt go there. The SC writing was on the wall so he wanted to spin the loss rather than face the fact that he can’t compete.
I can’t understand how team Romney can complain when the have Fox News and every AM Talkshow pumping Willard for all they are worth everyday.
If they’re being a cheerleader for McCain, they seem to be only a weak counterpart to blogs like Hugh Hewitt’s. I don’t see the problem here, unless Politico hasn’t openly declared their favorite but you feel they’re hiding their bias? It seems to me that every blog now has their favorite candidate; all are editorializing and choosing the positive stories for their own candidate and negative ones for the opponents of their favorite. There really isn’t any straight journalism going on anywhere these days that I can see.
On rereading, I see the answer to my question, that you are making a distinction between an opinion blog and a journalistic one. I guess I wasn’t familiar enough with Politico to know that they were purporting to be the latter and not the former.