All together now:
Oct 7 - 1:29:29 AM
Andrew Sullivan (entry):
STILL MASSIVE SUPPORT: The Times does its best to spin their poll this morning. But the critical number is the 67 percent support for war against Iraq, despite the intense and relentless campaign by the elites at the Times and elsewhere to turn that number around. They have failed. Now they will try to change the subject.Oct 7
Rush Limbaugh (article):
Mullah Howell Raines of the New York Times has run a push poll, and has finally produced the picture America that Democrats want: an America that cares more about the economy than the war on terrorism vis-à-vis Iraq. Not only was the poll conducted over a three day period, the last being a Saturday when Republicans are traditionally weak (no pollsters worth their salt survey on weekends), but they used a tiny, ultra-liberal group of 668 "people." Oct 8
Dick Morris (article):
... take a close look at the poll: The phrasing of the questions is so slanted and biased that it amounts to journalistic "push polling" - the use of "objective" polling to generate a predetermined result, and so vindicate a specific point of view. Oct 8
David Tell, Weekly Standard opinion editor (article):
THE NEW YORK TIMES has lately come under a barrage of media criticism, not all of it from "the right," about the extent to which editorial bias has infected the paper's hard news columns. And already some of that criticism has been directed specifically against the paper's A-section reporting on its own, propriety public opinion research (commissioned in partnership with CBS News). So what I'm about to offer isn't exactly without precedent. The bias in question, however, may well be without precedent; I can't remember anything quite like it, at least. "Poll Says Bush Needs to Pay Heed to Weak Economy," written up by Times correspondents Adam Nagourney and Janet Elder, and awarded pride of place--the front-page lede--in yesterday morning's edition, isn't just slanted (or misleading or imbalanced or overstated or any other word commonly applied to such things). The story is an outright fraud, a falsehood, a work of fiction. Oct 8 - 1:47 PM
Mickey Kaus (entry):
The Times' poll report was a pretty amazing (i.e. awful) performance -- breaking new ground by giving readers very few of the actual numbers that would back up reporter Adam Nagourney's conclusions. "Trust the Times to interepret the numbers," he seemed to be saying. Not these days, buddy!
There's so much bias in the Times right now ...
Will update with any subsequent comments from the usual suspects. FYI: NYTimes poll story is here