This is some of the most blatant bias I have witnessed in recent political news.
Click here for the full article
In the article McCain fails, Obama is not rattled, reporter Roger Simon of Yahoo! news reflects on last night's third and final presidential debate. As a news reporter, he is expected to provide a neutral summary of crucial talking points or chief events that occurred at the debate. Simon however provided the exact opposite and included a personal touch in his conclusions on the event. His writing seemed to slant far left, as a desciple to the Democrats and clearly against the Republicans, particularly candidates McCain and Palin.
"Debates should not be confused with trips to Lourdes: Few miracles are dispensed," said Simon in his first sentence of the article. For the record, I never knew what Lourdes hospitals were until I lived in Binghatom, so that metaphor should have had some clarification or not been included. More importantly, why is a miracle necessary? He opens this article by saying that McCain needed a miracle in the last debate to gain victory; thus, he implies that Obama leads by a landslide, which last time I checked prior to this debate they were almost kneck-in-kneck. Some attribution there is necessary to support his claims.
Simon's entire article is full of biases, faults and inaccuracies not to mention intense sarcasm [against McCain] based especially on his personal views about the political parties.
Simon metaphorically expresses McCain's defeat as "the clouds did not part. Heavenly choirs were not heard." Is that really necessary? Especially the sarcastic tone, which granted it's print, the underlying sarcam is evident in this statement. To me, it read like a mockery toward McCain and Palin's policies and beliefs.
My favorite is when he criticizes McCain for sarcastically attacking Obama in the debate; I guess Simon would surely know about sarcastic attacks!
Furthermore, he pursues the idea that Obama was not phased by McCain's 'harsh, brutal attacks' against him during the debate, in fact according to Simon, "Obama was so cool that after 90 minutes under blazing TV lights, an ice cube wouldn't have melted on his forehead." Are we writing for a second-grade joke class? Also, how does he know if the lights were even hot at all? Either he spoke to the candidates or was there under the lights with them; I didn't see anyone but the participants on TV, nor did he quote Obama regarding the 'excessive heat.'
Another blatantly bias approach was how Simon referred to McCain's response as a sneer ("McCain sneered") instead of using the correct journalistic format by saying said after a direct quote in a news story.
It's also interesting that Simon only referenced McCain's followers as nasty and threatening, but failed to mention the recent SNL parodies against Palin, or Madonna's outcry, unruly rant and public ban from concerts to Palin for no apparent reason. Madonna even threatened to kick Palin's ass if she showed up at one of her tour venues! How's that for nasty rallies?
He continually regurgitates the fact that Obama remained "cool" through the debate despite McCain's unruly and heinous attacks (as Simon would summarize them). Yet, just because he held his temper so well during a public discussion does not automatically indicate that the public's fear of his past relations are completely inaccurate--it just means he can hide things well, if there is anything to hide. Even if Obama mentions terrorist associations "smoothly" as Simon describes, it still instigates fear in some people.
Again, Simon throws in one of his opinionated and sarcastic rhetorical questions implying his political party affiliation and thus creating a biased story when he says "And McCain's desire to keep his party united behind him--because who else is? —"
After reading Simon's [Democratic] slanted article, I realized that his conclusion from the debate is that McCain intends to spark a fire inside Obama and make him erupt in anger, since according to Simon, that would be the only way McCain could win this election. This is not very accurate either; it's based on a mere assumption, going against journalistic rules.
The reporter clearly dictates his personal political stance throughout the story and even implies loutish remarks against McCain and Palin in their efforts to win the election.
I almost commended him at the end for recognizing that the election is not over and anything can happen in politics, until I read his closing statement: "It usually doesn't however."
F.Y.I. miracles do happen, but a miracle is not necessary here, so first get the facts straight then tell the story.