Wednesday, March 05, 2008

TIMES DECEIVES READERS The headline: Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio.

The sixth sentence?

And the result there allowed her to cast Tuesday as the beginning of a comeback even though she stood a good chance of gaining no ground against Mr. Obama in the hunt for delegates.
(Emphasis added.)

The currency of the nomination process is delegates. How a candidate could have a "win" that's "big" without gaining delegates goes unexplained.

From the twelfth paragraph:

Given the way the Democratic Party allocates delegates, it remained unclear whether Mrs. Clinton would close Mr. Obama’s lead on that front.
But to reiterate: That is the only front.

The New York Times could use its prestige and influence to correct a misleading bit of conventional wisdom that has cropped up in the last several days. Instead, the paper sacrifices accuracy so that it can stick with the crowd.

UPDATE: From the sixth paragraph of an article--also touting Clinton's "victories"--that The Times gives less prominence:

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, appeared likely to accumulate enough delegates from Texas and Ohio (as well as from his victory in Vermont) to strengthen his mathematical edge for the nomination.

CONTRAPOSITIVE is edited by Dan Aibel. Dan's a playwright. He lives in New York City.