Recently, The New York Times has been charged with favoring the Republican Party.
During heavy political times, most readers will draw some favoritism from the publishings. Is it safe to say the criticism is justified? Most certainly - for most articles addressing the Republican Party. The same can be said for articles pertaining to the Democratic Party and those taking a neutral stance (yes; believe it or not, there are some!).
In "McCain's Uphill Battle, Winning Is an Option," Adam Nagourney warned Obama's supporters and talked admiringly of McCain's supporters. He said the Republicans "argue that he [McCain] still has a visible path to victory" despite Obama's higher poll ratings.
Here a clear attack is made against Obama and visible bias is exercised by Nagourney. His warnings hinted that people should not lose faith in McCain quite yet.
On the other hand, the Times has also written numerous articles favoring the Democratic campaign.
"Polls Show Obama Gaining Among Bush Voters" emphasized Obama's increasing popularity - even among Republicans. Jim Rutenberg and Marjorie Connelly wrote that "Mr. Obama led Mr. McCain among groups that voted for President Bush four years ago".
Similarly in a "Father’s Tough Life an Inspiration for Biden," Biden's emotional relationship with his father is showcased - aiming to tug at the heart strings of readers.
The paper manages to remain neutral at times, as well. Rather than taking sides and arousing anger in readers, many articles are published that are impartial. In "Candidates Look to the West for Undecided Voters," the article explores the paths both candidates are taking to secure votes.
The article neither favors one candidate nor belittles another.
No comments:
Post a Comment