The New York Times reaches congressional approval levels
Never thought we'd see the day where the New York Times reached this level of contempt by readers. Sixty-five percent of those polled said that this was a deliberate effort to sink his campaign with regard to the recent story they ran over his supposed lobbyist ties:
Just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. Forty-four percent (44%) have an unfavorable opinion and 31% are not sure. The paper’s ratings are much like a candidate’s and divide sharply along partisan and ideological lines.
By a 50% to 18% margin, liberal voters have a favorable opinion of the paper. By a 69% to 9%, conservative voters offer an unfavorable view. The newspaper earns favorable reviews from 44% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 17% of those not affiliated with either major political story.
The Times recently became enmeshed in controversy over an article published concerning John McCain. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the nation’s likely voters say they have followed that story at least somewhat closely.
Of those who followed the story, 66% believe it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign. Just 22% believe the Times was simply reporting the news. Republicans, by an 87% to 9% margin, believe the paper was trying to hurt McCain’s chances of winning the White House. Democrats are evenly divided.
In terms of its ultimate impact, opinion is more mixed. Overall, 30% believe the Times article helped McCain, 34% believe it hurt, and 29% say it had no impact. A plurality of Republicans believe the article helped their party’s presumptive nominee while a plurality of Democrats held the opposite view.
Captain Ed calls it a kneecapping attempt and he's spot-on. There was no there there in that non-story. The veil has been lifted. He goes over the cross tabs for the demographic breakdown, and by a two-to-one margin in every category, except self-described liberals, the people believe that the Times was off the mark and out of bounds for printing the story.
In fact, the only people who are defending the paper, and claiming that the story was just "presenting the news" rather than doing a Ratheresque attempt to influence an election are liberals. Which should sound warning bells to the New York Times, not that they're listening. The only people that are willing to put up with their crap are the nuanced liberals that click their tongues at the likes of the masses. And that, folks, is the likely reason why their subscriptions are down, and advertisers are slowly pulling out of the Times. Well, that and you can get the Times for free on the 'Net, so why bother with the cage liner. Besides, most birds refuse to crap on such a paltry rage.
You'd be better off lining the cage with the National Enquirer. At least there's some decent reading in there once in a while. Of course, that's in between the Brittney/Lindsey stories, and the Oprah diet plans. (We'd use the Weekly World News but they went out of print. We really do miss those bat-boy stories.)
Publius II
Just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. Forty-four percent (44%) have an unfavorable opinion and 31% are not sure. The paper’s ratings are much like a candidate’s and divide sharply along partisan and ideological lines.
By a 50% to 18% margin, liberal voters have a favorable opinion of the paper. By a 69% to 9%, conservative voters offer an unfavorable view. The newspaper earns favorable reviews from 44% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 17% of those not affiliated with either major political story.
The Times recently became enmeshed in controversy over an article published concerning John McCain. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the nation’s likely voters say they have followed that story at least somewhat closely.
Of those who followed the story, 66% believe it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign. Just 22% believe the Times was simply reporting the news. Republicans, by an 87% to 9% margin, believe the paper was trying to hurt McCain’s chances of winning the White House. Democrats are evenly divided.
In terms of its ultimate impact, opinion is more mixed. Overall, 30% believe the Times article helped McCain, 34% believe it hurt, and 29% say it had no impact. A plurality of Republicans believe the article helped their party’s presumptive nominee while a plurality of Democrats held the opposite view.
Captain Ed calls it a kneecapping attempt and he's spot-on. There was no there there in that non-story. The veil has been lifted. He goes over the cross tabs for the demographic breakdown, and by a two-to-one margin in every category, except self-described liberals, the people believe that the Times was off the mark and out of bounds for printing the story.
In fact, the only people who are defending the paper, and claiming that the story was just "presenting the news" rather than doing a Ratheresque attempt to influence an election are liberals. Which should sound warning bells to the New York Times, not that they're listening. The only people that are willing to put up with their crap are the nuanced liberals that click their tongues at the likes of the masses. And that, folks, is the likely reason why their subscriptions are down, and advertisers are slowly pulling out of the Times. Well, that and you can get the Times for free on the 'Net, so why bother with the cage liner. Besides, most birds refuse to crap on such a paltry rage.
You'd be better off lining the cage with the National Enquirer. At least there's some decent reading in there once in a while. Of course, that's in between the Brittney/Lindsey stories, and the Oprah diet plans. (We'd use the Weekly World News but they went out of print. We really do miss those bat-boy stories.)
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 7:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home