Media biased in word selection

Obama lead over McCain narrows in ABC/Post poll

   

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama leads

   

Republican John McCain by 50 percent to 46 percent among likely voters in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, down from a 9-point edge a week earlier.

    

The new poll released on Tuesday was conducted Saturday through Monday, after the candidates met in their first debate on Friday.

   

Obama had led McCain by 52 percent to 43 percent in the poll's previous survey released last week.

In the new poll, Obama, an Illinois senator, gained support among independents, closing a substantial gap with McCain who had been favored by crucial swing voters.

   

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE48T8S820080930

   

Odd they choose “narrows” instead of shrinks or McCain gains ground.  Narrow should be used if the headline would have been “McCain narrows Obama’s lead in ABC/Post poll”.  The headline they used puts a positive spin on Obama losing ground and McCain gaining ground.

    

They use “gained” when touting Obama.  This is evidence that the media in even writing the stories is biased.

Comments

[Steve T.]

Watch how Obama and MSM even write about Bush-McCain as if that is the ticket.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004420756_camp17.html

http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/obama-what-bush-mccain-economy-feels

Not only is that not the ticket in reality, but that is how the left sees this.

[grumps]

We have now progressed beyond analysis into the picking of nits. Yikes!

[Steve T.]

Not yet Grumps, picking of nits, John hasn’t written in yet to tell you nit picking is how most people say it.

That is an analysis BTW on both counts your comment and the post.

[John Foust]

I'll make Steve happy by correcting Grumps. "Picking of nits" is a perfectly good phrase, but nit-picking is the lesser of analysis. Therefore, I'll make Steve unhappy by pointing out that this wasn't even analysis.

Also, I think it's poor form for Steve T be the first reply to Steve T's own post. What happened in the intervening 3 1/2 hours? Were you disappointed that none of your loyal and prominent thinkers had chimed in with a "Good analysis"?

[Steve T.]

1. an investigation of the component parts of a whole and their relations in making up the whole
2. the abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in order to study the parts and their relations

3. a form of literary criticism in which the structure of a piece of writing is analyzed

Yes you are right John! Wow thanks for showing me the light just like Obama is doing!

[Steve T.]

Good one John! When I see the other blogs doing so, I will. He is it not customary for people to respond on topic and answer questions or is that just a rule for those on the right?

[grumps]

Actually, Steve I was talking about the similarities between your tongue-bathing posts which concentrate on the most obscure minutiae and the actions of red-assed monkeys at the zoo as they groom one another.

[Steve T.]

See there you go again Grumps, confusing the right with the left! The right is not one mind and thought like the left is. While the left is a herd on a cliff and Obama telling you all to jump, you do! No independent thought. Just look at the a*s kissing the left blogs do with each other. Watch how many right blogs and bloggers disagree with each other, that is something you clearly don’t see with the Obamabots like yourself.

Grumps, I know these things are just much for your one brain and the collective thought has not spoke or your leader Foust! Which BTW is the most intelligent of your bunch! No wonder he is your spokesperson and he doesn’t even like the liberal label.

[John Foust]

Sorry, Steve, I'm not the leader.