One must ask if the QC Times takes any pride in trying to maintain a semblance of objectivity in its journalistic enterprise when it comes to Obama. Given the wide and bi-partisan sense that Obama lost the debate can there be any credibility to today’s headline created by the paper? The AP story itself does not sustain the chosen words.
Regardless, it is intended to neutralize the negative buzz about Obama the casual passerby of the news rack might have heard had they not witnessed the debate . . . “oh so Obama didn’t do so bad.” There must have been a lot of spewed coffee absorbed by this edition of the QCT from those objective readers who did view the debates.
And then . . . while not intended to be readable here, because we know how hard it is to clean coffee out of a keyboard, pick up a copy from a liberal friend and gander at the statements underneath each picture. The Obama reference on top is the assertive “Said Romney didn’t tell truth during the first debate.” And for Romney . . . he rates a defensive denial that is intended to inject the Obama accusation. “Denies Obama’s claim of supporting a $5T tax cut for the wealthy.” It is the equivalent of “Obama says Romney does not tell the truth” . . . and the Romney response . . . “I didn’t torture my cat.” RM
You’re exctly right about this headline and the average Joe who didn’t watch the debate seeing it. It just makes it look like nothing really significant happened and that Obama probably did enough to win. Remember all the pre debate polls going 2 to 1 from registered voters thinking that Obama would beat Romney? That is where this misleading and disingenuous headline comes into play.
In a parallel universe where Obama didn’t get his butt kicked the QC Times headline would probably read “Obama expected to get big bounce from debate” or “Romney struggles on big stage.”
A keen observation regarding the statements under the pictures of Our Dear Leader and Gov. Romney: the former making a charge, forcing a portrayal of a defensive Romney . Says it all. Unlikely that the editors even realize their bias impulses…it’s second nature.