New York Times Baits With Race

There was a time when the New York Times was considered the "Paper of Record." This means that guys writing history books about America or the world would use the NYTimes as a reference. This means that we all grew up learning about the history of our country that was partially influenced by the reporting in the New York Times. So, when this paper makes mistakes, it means that history books will be reporting the inaccurate news as fact.

So, here comes the NYTimes today reporting in an April 24, 2008 article (screencapped above and available here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/us/politics/24obama.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin ) on how presidential candidate Barack Obama can't quite win over the Democrats. The writer of the piece, Adam Nagourney, dances around the premise like a ballerina, taking an entire article to ask a simple question:

Is American too racist to elect a black man to the White House?

This is one of those stupid questions the press asks over and over again because they know it can't be answered. They babble on and on about the debate that doesn't really exist--I don't see any anti Obama protests. I don't see any violence breaking out. These things, to me, are evidence of a real debate taking place in America. Remember the Civil Rights movement back int he 60s? There were protests, there was violence. THAT was a debate.

What we've got now is just a bunch of reporters trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. There's no way to know if we're ready for a black prezzie until November when the vote actually happens. This kind of article, to me, seems like a giant attempt to confuse people into thinking that whether or not we're ready is an issue.

Once again, we won't know until we try. Just because he's not winning in a landslide doesn't mean he's too black to be in the White House.

Meanwhile, there are food riots around the world, gas prices are astronomical, climate change is still a problem, and the validity and stability of our election systems is in serious question, but we need to stop and debate about whether race will prevent a black guy from getting in the White House.

Yeah! Let's talk about an unwinable debate. Not only that, let's confuse the issue. In the first paragraph, the article asks, regarding Obama:

"Why has he been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination?"

Two paragraphs later, though:

"Mr. Obama remains ahead of Mrs. Clinton in delegates, in the popular vote and in national polls, and Mrs. Clinton certainly has her own problems trying to herd Democrats into her corner."

So, it sounds like he *has* wrapped up the nomination, doesn't it?

BUT WAIT, there's more--the very next paragraph says:

"But just when it seemed that the Democratic Party was close to anointing Mr. Obama as its nominee, he lost yet again in a big general election state, dragged down by his weakness among blue-collar voters, older voters and white voters."

But isn't that irrelevant thanks to your previous paragraph talking about how he's got more delegates than Clinton? Make up your mind, Adam!

See, it seems like you're just making all this shit up since Obama already has the delegates he needs. What's really funny about that last excerpt from the article is that it references Obama's "weakness among blue-collar voters, older voters and white voters."

So, according to this, he's weak among almost EVERYONE. Is that why he's got all those delegates???

WTF, man! Come on! No wonder my history class turned me off as a kid--it had the NY Times as a source!! To sell papers, you make a maze out of a straight line!!

Everyone knows race is an issue in America--it *always will be*. But after reading this article, I don't know if Obama is doing well or not. Being in the lead doesn't seem to be enough--I don't know why and this article does nothing to help me understand why.

I understand newspapers need to make money, but there's got to be some middle ground between creating news from the æther and giving us what we need to function in a democracy. Too many of us think that it's ok for newspapers to do what they have to in order to bring in the cash. The catch is that some things are actually more important than money.

I know, that's sacrilegious to say, but it's true. We need to know what's going on and we can't trust our political leaders to be honest. So, the media needs to tell us what is up, so we can vote appropriately. However, if they're too busy making drama where there isn't any (or isn't much), how can we know how to vote?

The whole system falls apart at this point. Not only does that effect us and our country but also, if indirectly, the entire world (since so much of what America does effects the rest of the world).
Mobile post sent by thepete using Utterz.  Replies.

---

Orignal From: New York Times Baits With Race