Kaitlyn_Crist@gmail.com
@Kaitlyn_Crist
A Big Push "Forward"
Last week, the New York Times officially endorsed President Barack Obama for a second term as the President of the United States.
This is a big endorsement, seeing as the Times is the longest-running national newspaper, and the biggest of a dying breed.
This got me wondering about NYTimes.com coverage overall, and if it was as left leaning as its endorsement.
Overall (at least in the journalism world) is always considered a slightly more liberal newspaper, but nothing of MSNBC proportions.
To back this up, an interactive (interactive!!!) article shows that NYT hasn't endorsed a Republican candidate since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.
Do Headlines Convey More than Story?
As I have been observing the NYT website, I have noticed an interesting trend with the headlines of stories featuring each of the candidates.
I saw that stories featuring the President typically were middle and working-class focused.
The had a grassroots, local feel, with titles such as, "Ohio Working Class May Offer Key to Obama’s Re-election."
On the other hand, stories featuring Romney have a more "business man" slant, portraying him as a manager, and many stories discuss him "fighting" for votes.
Do these headline have an influence on the voter? Could it be that the Times is making President Obama look more middle-class friendly, while Romney is a upper-level manager type?
It seems to be the case, but it is safe to say that it may not be completely intentional.
New York Times Trust
Despite the left leans, I think for undecided voters, the Times is still the paper to trust when it comes to 2012.
They may have a bit of leaning coverage, but it is not overt or one sided by any means.
They cover both of the candidates equally, and with just as much respect and/or scrutiny that they deserve.
So undecided voters, go to NYTimes.com, you will not be led astray.
A Big Push "Forward"
Last week, the New York Times officially endorsed President Barack Obama for a second term as the President of the United States.
 |
| The New York Times endorsement for President Obama |
This got me wondering about NYTimes.com coverage overall, and if it was as left leaning as its endorsement.
Overall (at least in the journalism world) is always considered a slightly more liberal newspaper, but nothing of MSNBC proportions.
To back this up, an interactive (interactive!!!) article shows that NYT hasn't endorsed a Republican candidate since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.
Do Headlines Convey More than Story?
As I have been observing the NYT website, I have noticed an interesting trend with the headlines of stories featuring each of the candidates.
I saw that stories featuring the President typically were middle and working-class focused.
The had a grassroots, local feel, with titles such as, "Ohio Working Class May Offer Key to Obama’s Re-election."
 |
| The latest NYT headline on Mitt Romney |
On the other hand, stories featuring Romney have a more "business man" slant, portraying him as a manager, and many stories discuss him "fighting" for votes.
Do these headline have an influence on the voter? Could it be that the Times is making President Obama look more middle-class friendly, while Romney is a upper-level manager type?
It seems to be the case, but it is safe to say that it may not be completely intentional.
New York Times Trust
Despite the left leans, I think for undecided voters, the Times is still the paper to trust when it comes to 2012.
They may have a bit of leaning coverage, but it is not overt or one sided by any means.
They cover both of the candidates equally, and with just as much respect and/or scrutiny that they deserve.
So undecided voters, go to NYTimes.com, you will not be led astray.
No comments:
Post a Comment