Quite possibly the guys and gals at the New York Times are dismayed by this finding, per Rasmussen Reports, that 51 percent of respondents in a poll taken Aug. 8 and 9 said that they expected reporters to help the Obama campaign over that of Republican Mitt Romney. Nine percent said Romney would benefit from coverage.
A reader, looking at the data, might shake a head in wonder how it was that the question was even asked. Reporters, after all, are expected to be impartial, so the question itself should be something of a non sequitur.
Reporters, looking at the same data, should shake their heads and wonder why the numbers weren’t closer, say 60-40, if not 50-50.
Reporters, after all, are human, and in a random selection on any given issue ought to split roughly down the middle. That would be the idea that the media in general ought to prefer.
New York Times execs, knowing the influence they have over reporters nationwide, might study the survey and shake a head in disappointment. All that effort and only 51 percent of reporters favoring their fave?
“Why not 90 percent! Get the Poynter Institute on the phone,” they might bellow out to the nearest frightened underling.
Presented with the stock page showing the precipitous drop in the Times’ value, the same execs would simply demand more coffee and some cake while idly wondering why it was that “the little people” could see no value in their offerings – then ask “What kind of dirt we got on Romney today?”