Over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency, we have seen the media transform from a left-leaning, softball throwing, data twisting conglomeration into a full-blown advocacy group. A perfect example is the cover-up regarding the attack in Libya. Here is another. Just look at how a so-called “journalist” reports on the “news” of the presidential election.
The story is by Thomas Beaumont of the Associated Press. The headline reads, “Advantage Obama in hunt for 270 electoral votes.”
Advantage Obama? Is he kidding? Does this “reporter” actually watch the news?
Yes, the race is extremely close, but everyone knows that over the past month, states that were once close have Romney in the lead. States that were once securely Obama’s are now neck and neck. Those are the facts. Yet it’s advantage Obama?
President Barack Obama is poised to eke out a victory in the race for the 270 electoral votes needed to win re-election, having beaten back Republican Mitt Romney’s attempts to convert momentum from the debates into support in all-important Ohio, according to an Associated Press analysis a week before Election Day.
While the Democratic incumbent has the upper hand in the electoral vote hunt, Romney has pulled even, or is slightly ahead, in polling in a few pivotal states, including Florida and Virginia. The Republican challenger also appears to have the advantage in North Carolina, the most conservative of the hotly contested nine states that will determine the winner.
First of all, it’s one thing for pundits to write op-eds and give interviews regarding who they think will win and why. But what is the point of a news organization doing an analysis BEFORE the election? It’s not news. It’s just an attempt to sway voters.
Obama is certainly NOT “poised” to eke out a victory. Who is saying that? No one.
Regarding North Carolina, the reporter makes in sound as if there is uncertainty: “The Republican challenger also appears to have the advantage in North Carolina.” Appears? Romney is solidly ahead. He WILL win North Carolina, and yet, this reporter attempts to cast doubt. Obama does not have the “upper” hand any more than Romney does. And based on the way all the polls continue to move toward Romney, the assertion that Obama has “beaten back Republican Mitt Romney’s attempts to convert momentum from the debates into support in all-important Ohio” is patently false. Ohio is a dead-heat, and it is precisely BECAUSE of the momentum generated by Romney.
While in a tight race with Obama for the popular vote, Romney continues to have fewer state-by-state paths than Obama to reach 270. Without Ohio’s 18 electoral votes, Romney would need last-minute victories in nearly all the remaining up-for-grabs states and manage to pick off key states now leaning Obama’s way, such as Iowa or Wisconsin.
This paragraph is so completely bogus. Both Obama and Romney have states that are clearly locked in. Both have only a few possible scenarios to victory. And yet, of those scenarios, there is no path that looks brighter for Obama than it did last month. In addition, the idea that Iowa or Wisconsin is a key state “now leaning Obama’s way” is completely false. Wisconsin (for example) was ALWAYS leaning Obama’s way. The fact is that the race has drawn even because of Romney’s campaigning and momentum. It certainly was never in Romney’s corner and now breaking for Obama.
The reporter then includes this sentence: “The AP analysis isn’t intended to predict the outcome.” But wait… going back and looking at the first paragraph, the first sentence reads: “President Barack Obama is poised to eke out a victory in the race for the 270 electoral votes…” That sure sounds like a prediction to me.
The story goes on and on. Here’s the election victory scenarios that are presented:
Obama, who won in 2008 in places where Democrats had not for a generation, continues to have several routes to electoral victory. His easiest: win Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, which are leaning his way. He could keep the White House with victories in Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada. If he loses Ohio, he could prevail by sweeping New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada and Colorado.
Romney has fewer options. He must carry Florida and Virginia, where Republicans are feeling good about his standing, as well as wrest control of Ohio, and then also win Nevada, Colorado or New Hampshire. If he loses Ohio, Romney must make up for the state’s 18 electoral votes by cutting his way through Obama-leaning territory.
Now, read those two paragraphs, and tell me which candidate has the easier path. Granted, no path is “easy,” but look how they are described. The path described for Obama as his “easiest” is incomplete. Obama could win Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa, and still not get to 270. He would need help from states completely up for grabs. Romney’s strategy has the word “or” in it. Obama’s has the word “and” in it, yet Obama somehow has the easier path? Don’t fall for it.
Yes, the election could go either way. I’m banking on a Romney win. It will either be close, or I believe there is a potential for a Romney blow out. But to create a “news” story predicting Obama as the winner and misrepresenting the facts is certainly not “journalism.” It’s political hackery at its worst.