NY Times misrepresents Wash. Post/ABC poll, Clinton "rating"
A January 21 front-page New York Times article misrepresented the results of a new Washington Post/ABC News poll in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) received a 54 percent favorability rating and led among Democratic contenders by 24 points. In reporting on the contest for financial support between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in the 2008 presidential race, New York Times reporters Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny wrote: "Several New York and Hollywood donors offered a similar assessment: they liked Mrs. Clinton as a senator, but worried that her rating in a new Washington Post/ABC News Poll released Saturday was at 41 percent, despite having nearly 100 percent name recognition."
In fact, as The Washington Post reported on January 21, Clinton has a 54 percent favorability rating in the poll. The 41 percent figure cited by the Times refers to support for Clinton's presidential bid among Democrats and Democratic-leaning poll respondents. In citing the 41 percent figure as a sign of donor concern about her prospects, the Times not only misdescribed it as her "rating," it also omitted the fact that she polled 24 points higher than her nearest opponent, Obama, though a separate "news analysis" by Healy, reporting that the Clinton campaign touted the poll results to its supporters, made reference to that result.
But even the "news analysis" misrepresented the poll. In that, Healy falsely suggested that Clinton proclaimed that the poll shows her ahead of Obama by 41 percentage points, writing: "Her new campaign wasted no time yesterday sending an e-mail message about a new Washington Post-ABC poll giving Mrs. Clinton a 41 percentage point lead over her closest rival, Mr. Obama, who had 17 points." ** In fact, the misrepresentation of the poll results was Healy's, not Clinton's. Clinton sent out a press release noting, accurately, that according to the poll, 41 percent of respondents chose her in "a hypothetical primary field against 12 other Democrats," with Obama receiving 17 percent.
From the Washington Post poll, conducted January 16-19 among a random national sample of 1,000 adults on the question, "[D]o you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of (NAME)?"
|
Favorable |
Unfavorable |
No opinion | |
|
Hillary Clinton |
54 |
44 |
3 |
|
John McCain |
49 |
35 |
16 |
|
Barack Obama |
45 |
29 |
25 |
|
Rudy Giuliani |
61 |
29 |
10 |
|
Bill Clinton |
61 |
37 |
2 |
The poll then asked of respondents who said they leaned Democrat: "If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?"
|
1/19/07 |
12/11/06 | |
|
Hillary Clinton |
41 |
39 |
|
Barack Obama |
17 |
17 |
|
John Edwards |
11 |
12 |
|
John Kerry |
8 |
7 |
|
Al Gore |
10 |
10 |
|
Wesley Clark |
1 |
1 |
|
Tom Vilsack |
1 | |
|
Evan Bayh |
NA |
1 |
|
Bill Richardson |
1 |
2 |
|
Joe Biden |
3 |
2 |
|
Chris Dodd | ||
|
Dennis Kucinich |
1 |
NA |
|
Mike Gravel |
|
NA |
|
Other (vol.) |
1 | |
|
None of these (vol.) |
2 |
2 |
|
Would not vote (vol.) |
1 | |
|
No opinion |
3 |
4 |
** UPDATE: The New
York Times corrected Healy's misrepresentation of The Washington Post/ABC News poll in his "news
analysis," without noting that it had done so. As of January 22, the Times had not issued a formal correction in the
print or online
editions of the paper. The article now
states: "Her new campaign wasted no time yesterday sending an e-mail
message about a new Washington Post-ABC poll giving Mrs. Clinton a 24
percentage point lead over her closest rival, Mr. Obama." Return to item
I have a lot of respect for what this website has done, but you are now simply disintegrating into a Clinton for President website and it is hard to take you seriously anymore.
You never had any respect for this site. You're here to troll the place up.
how about discussing the facts. why should it be a "worry" if she is the choice of 41 percent of democrats in a field of 13 names. sounds like something any one of those other candidates would love.
The facts are that on every given day, now, this website is defending Hillary. Some of the defenses are legitimate, but some are just partisan hackery. To defend Clinton as if she has taken some real stand against the war is ridiculous. And I have long been a fan of this website to the other poster who claimed otherwise. I'm sure you can look at old posts dating back for 3 or 4 years.
misrepresent something here? The answer is no.
If the Times wrote that Obama's favorable rating was at 12% (rather than the 17% the pole actually states) I think MMFA would have reported that also. It so happens that the Times spread misinformation concerning Hillary.
I've got to respectfully say that you're dead wrong on this one.
Even before I read your comment in the comment section, my reaction to this article was the same: Is this Clinton's New Campaign Website? MMFA is going to lose its progressive followers, just like MoveOn.org did during the Kerry campaign when it followed the DNC's lead and abandoned Howard Dean and other Democratic candidates against the Iraq war, as well as their populace supporters. It seems there are a lot of people, in the mainstream media and in the Democratic Party that want to force Clinton down our throats before the primaries begin; resulting in meaningless primaries because the other candidates will already be written off.
The DLC will be trying to sell us on Clinton for the next two years. Never mind that she was the pro-war candidate in the NY Senatorial race. All that matters is that she's a woman and she has a D behind her name. Who cares about policy, who cares about the issues? This is all about winning the Precious for Hillary so she and the Democrats will get all the corporate bribe money.
And the American people will get poorer and poorer, the Federal government more corrupt and criminal, the Evil Empire will attack more nations simply because Israel commands it to....watching a nation self-destruct from the inside is not much fun.
the Koolaid, and look at the facts:
We're talking about a couple of writers for the New York Times who have grossly misrepresented a simple poll.
If this doesn't amount to consevative misinformation, I don't know what does.
and her stands, then comment on those threads about the war or whatever. i have no problem with that. i don't know who i will support. will i vote hillary over a republican? yes. but this article seems to be putting a clear negative spin on her. and she is the frontrunner and she did just announce. so it is misinformation. and i didn't call you any names.
Supporting? No.
All I've seen reported here are the attempts by everyone on the right, to smear Senator Clinton. Reporting the smear is in no way an endorsement.
While John Edwards turned out to be our strongest, candidate against would-be candidates McCain and Giuliani in the last Newsweek poll, the Washington Post unexplicably left him out of the question about the 2008 general elections.
before (Healy and Zeleny).
I guess only one of two explanations are possible:
1) They're trying to put Mrs. Clinton in as bad a light as possible.
2) They need to go back and finish the 5th grade, because they can't even interpret the data from a simple poll corectly.
I'm leaning toward 1.
I just hit this website while online for a few, and see three items have been published this Sunday... all about Hillary.
I have a few poll results right here... conducted at the checkout line, in the lobby of the theatre, and at the laundromat... here's the results:
From an admittedly narrow sampling, we may confidently estimate...
That 96% of the American People don't give a squat, one way or another, about Hillary at this present time...
82% don't care anything at all about the '08 presidential campaign, this early...
37% of all Americans are even reporting symptoms of nausea at all of the '08 crap, this early (no question was asked relating Hillary specifically, and nausea)...
When asked about particular issues, and Hillary and/or the '08 crap in general, we found:
99% of the American People found the ongoing situation in Iraq to be far more important to them right now, than anything Hillary or '08...
99% also felt the president's ongoing defense of his scheme of death and lies and greed in Iraq, to be more important than Hillary and/or '08...
94% felt that way about Congressional ethics... that it was more important right now than Hillary and/or '08...
89% felt that same way about Congressional oversight... oversight of anything at all...
82% of all Americans thought the present incompetence/corruption of the U.S. Intelligence gathering powers of our government, to be more important than Hillary...
33% think double coupons are more important than Hillary...
33% think the ridiculously high price of movie tickets to be more important than Hillary...
33% think losing a sock in the dryer to be more important to them at this time, than Hillary is...
Now, while those poll results were collected on the checkout line and in the lobby of the movie house and at the 'Tiny Bubbles' coin-op laundry (and the poll answers may reflect this), I'd guess that if instead I had conducted the poll at, say...
MMFA
I'd have come up with different results... more like:
100% of those at MMFA think Hillary to be the single most important issue in the "media" right now.
Me, I think Hillary to be so unimportant right now (with Iraq and the president and all, weighing so much on my mind, and the American People's minds, right now)...
...so unimportant, that the next friggin' Hillary story I see on this website's frontpage, I'm gonna mouse on up to the Favorites menu, and remove this Hillary-fixated website from my Favorites Folder, and find another "media" watchdog to get my citations of bias and slant from...
...and if I can't find another "media" watchdog, then I'll form my own...
...me, and the good folks I met on line at the checkout counter and at the concessions stand in the lobby of the movie house and at the laundromat...
...me and them, because I know they care about as much about Hillary right now as I do.
About as much as 96% of the American People do... who don't give a squat about Hillary, one way or the other, right now.
website.
You've obviously got a lot to say. Your posts are usually very long.
And I would say, often quite good.
These candidates are barely on the ground yet. You guys are already brawling. Let it play for a while. Let's just see what happens. There is this turbo charged top fueled media frenzy...about anything...BEFORE anything has happened. Big spinouts and gaffes are sure to follow a little bit later.
- disintegrating into a Clinton for President website - steve expat
Newsday reported a few gems recently to explain why you are correct:
- Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget.
- Two years ago, she advised Brock on creating the group
- Kelly Craighead, one of the Clinton's closest friends, served as one of Brock's top advisers during Media Matters' formation in 2004.
- Craighead - whose 2001 marriage ceremony in California was performed by Sen. Clinton...serves as a top adviser to the Democracy Alliance...has steered more than $6 million to Brock's group in the past two years
- Media Matters' special projects director, C. Neel Lattimore, was Clinton's press secretary when she was first lady.
- Podesta, one of Hillary Clinton's top policy advisers, made room for Media Matters in the center's offices before Brock found permanent digs for the group.
This all points to the slippery footing for mmfa's credibility as a media watchdog while while unabashedly cheerleading Clinton's run for president in 2008.
The post that appears at the top of this thread, the first post, makes perfect sense to me and I agree with it completely (I didn't read the several in response to it, so I don't know about them).
Also, the post above, to which mine responds, also makes sense and finds me agreeing with it... although I know nothing of the particulars mentioned in it (and care nothing either)... but it's right:
Credibility goes out the same window, that Partisanship comes in.
Is this website, or is it not, an objective "media" watchdog?
And by objective, I mean holding truth and fact as a guiding light, and not the political aspirations of any individual (or even their political reputation) as a guiding principle.
Because as anyone can plainly see, a website (a supposed "media" watchdog) that has always seemed Hillary heavy to me, now has a streak of five consecutive Hillary stories going... if you discount last week's weekly item.
In an interview with Brock...published by Random House...he was asked who he would choose for president.
He gave a bland assessment that any major democrat candidate would be better than Pres. Bush. He also clearly stated that he was in favor of repealing the 22nd amendment and bringing back Bill Clinton...he also stated that Hillary would be an "inspired choice".
It's clear who mmfa supports...and that taint bears watching.
Thank you. That information is very illuminating. It does explain a lot.
wow, great... truly appreciated is the return of the preview!
It seems that the comments will no longer have a title... fine, they were unecessary anyway
Regardless of the squabbling here between pro- vs. anti-hillary camps, I think the key thing to glean from this dispatch is that we'd better keep a friggin' eye on the NY Times this election cycle so that the American people aren't misled about the facts as we were by Judith Miller's reporting on the ramp up to the Iraq invasion!! It's the best (large daily) paper we (progressives) have got, but we've still got to watch the watchers ... I think it's healthy to question Hillary's involvment in this organization, but one may do that AND critique coverage of her as well in an objective manner ...
I wouldn't want this to become a Hillary website either.
That said, let's realize that Hilary announcing her running for pres is probably going to inspire our nations right-wing media to huge new levels of conservative lies and filth.
So, it's likely Hillary's name would show up more than others.
And that's exactly what they want. All the Demmies will be convinced Hillary must be good if all the Repubs hate her, and if the Democrats win, the torch of corporofascism will pass from the far-right of the Repub party to the far-right of the Dem party. The Master Plan marches on!
Mike Gravel is coming on strong, moving from "NA" to "*" in one short month. He's got Gravelmentum!
No, wait wait wait...
Gravelocity
??????????????????
Who the hell is Mike Gravel?
I don't know, but he's getting off to a rocky start.
i hear he's got some real stones. [did i just say that]
I haven't noticed any big shift to covering Hillary on this website. This is a website for conservative misinformation and this IS misinformation. If Hillary is in the news a bit more because she just announced, etc., then there will invariably be more coverage. Our democracy and the press are very inticately linked. And Hillary, just like Bill, will be a big target for the right wing press smear/noise machine. Better get used to it. She is numero uno for the bashers. And we have a right to know when she is getting the business from the usual suspects.
The only question that matters for the story is "Which poll caused the potential donors distress?" Did the Times get that wrong? If so, then maybe there was some misinformation.
Hillary supporters should be glad the favorability poll wasn't mentioned as her unfavorability rating is quite high (44%).
yeah but the fact is that virtually everyone knows who she is. the unfavorable is no surprise. i'm sure that includes almost all republicans.