The New York Times has a pretty fair article by Adam Nagourney about Sharron Angle, after a pretty fair interview.
Sure, I could nitpick some of the characterizations in the article, but it really was pretty fair. None of the John Ralston Geraldo-like grandstanding, or usual MSM presumptions that Angle is crazy until proven otherwise.
This is all very suspicious.
——————————————–
Related Post:
Top 10 Reasons The NY Times Will Not Hire Me
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I can't see what you think is so fair about this piece. In my years in politics and PR, we always assessed news stories by the thrust of the first few paragraphs, since that, plus the headline, account for 90% of a story's impact on readers (yes, even educated, sopisticated Times readers just glance at or skim most stories).
In this case, Angle loses big time in the first 10 paragraphs. By the time you get to where she's changing her approach, most readers have gone away. PLus, the headline and early graphs firmly stamp her as "Tea Party," which for most Times readers everywhere means she's crazy anyway.
@John Burke – I guess I have such low expectations …..