Seriously? This is pathetic. Michelle Obama's favourables outnumber her unfavourables 2.5 to 1, and they play the "20% favourable" card.

Then there's framing the story as a failure of the Obama campaign, and I don't even see how it's arguable that the entire story - and not just the headline - is framed as a failure of Obama's campaign.

I didn't like the Obama campaign response - I felt that they dumped everything in there without discrimination and it made the response sound like a list of dredged-up grievances - but Nagourney needs to learn when to knock over his king and set up the pieces again.

I do think he definitely deserves credit for responding.

Ummmm, I'd call this response somewhat underwhelming, frankly.

And maybe that's because the headline created a misleading impression. The headline implied that there was some sort of hurdle with respect to race that the Obama campaign wasn't meeting.

The point of the story is that black respondents apparently do not see the fact of Mr. Obama's candidacy as evidence of significant improvement in race relations

Then why not put something to that effect in the headline?

And, since Mr. Nagourney brought it up, why not include the head-to-head matchups between McCain and Obama? Wouldn't data from that also speak to race relations? For instance, wouldn't an even split between McCain and Obama for white voters say something about race relations? Or an even splito between McCain and Obama for black voters?

This explanlation, that the story was really about how blacks feel about the Obama candidacy and its effect on race relations seems somewhat post hoc, if you ask me.

But kudos to Nagourney for at least answering the questions.

Greg -- or anyone else, for that matter -- can correct me if I'm wrong, but AdNags is responsible for the writing in the article, but not the headline, which is an editorial decision. In any event, I would hardly characterize the bogus suggestion that Michelle Obama has a 20% approval rating, without revealing that 72% of respondents had no opinion on her, as a "smaller matter." That kind of an omission is nothing less than Fox-esque.

So if I read Nagourney's defense correctly, he is saying "What we said was the truth, even though we didn't tell the whole truth."

Nuttin' wrong with that, but they should have said so in the article.

Swampland had a pretty good take on just how bad the article was:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/obama_and_race.html

Greg, maybe you can pass the link on to Adam for further consideration.

It's just a weird non-story. It's worthy of The Onion.

The New York Times should worry that they aren't reporting the news, they ARE the news. It isn't the first time, either.

This is getting way too circular, for me, anyway.

I think I'm going to just start completely ignoring that paper. I don't want to read about their editorial policy, the motivations of their reporters, their in-house battles, their peculiar take on polls, or any of it.

Maybe there needs to be a daily that just focuses on reporters talking to other reporters. Then the rest of us could decline to purchase that paper.

Every story in the Corporate Media on Obama is framed as a failure for Obama. Every story on McStain is framed as a challenge for Obama. It is like this Every election. The Republicans are united, competent, popular, the Democrats are divided, chaotic, out-of-sync.

Here's an idea for Nagourney that I do for my students: rewrite the article! You'll get partial credit, but at least it's better than an F. We'll include it in his writing portfolio to show the progress he has made over the trimester.
If it's good enough for 8th graders, it's good enough for the Times.

Well as long as Adam feels comfortable. What exactly does that mean? Isn't it just his weasel worded way of saying that he is right, and the rest of you are all wrong.

first off, lumping the "No Opinion" responses with the "Negative opinion" responses is a mistake

telling me that 20% have a favorable opinion is a presentation of a worthless fact. without the corosponding data, you learn nothing. if 3% have an unfavorable opinion, and 77% have no opinion, that would mean that 97% of the respondants had a favorable opinion, and only 3% actually have a negative view

is Adam Nagourney an amateur or stupid, I don't think so

it's a deliberate attempt to mislead people

I too wagged my head when I read the story in the New York Times, and to be honest I AM FED UP with the Mainstream Media and it's pack of Repthug pushing and trying to find fault with any Decent Democrat running.

There is only ONE WAY to combat the MSM, and that's through their advertising dollars. They're hurtin' as much as is possible anyway.

I propose a NATIONAL CAMPAIGN by us, the Netroots to BOYCOTT all major advertisers in the MSM. We will pledge NOT to buy any CARS, CLOTHES, JEWELRY or any other non-essential items until the MSM restores BALANCE to their coverage of the campaign.

(Of course, we let the advertisers know EXACTLY what's going on...)

Who else is willing to help take the 2008 Patriot Challenge???

Just to back up those who assert that the headline was not written by Nagourney -- you're right. That privilege is always reserved for the editors. But no matter who's to blame, the headline is completely bogus and, I think, deliberately misleading. And the article is so cherry-picked, Nagourney should be embarrassed. Though I'm convinced that nearly everyone at the NYTimes is beyond embarrassment at this point.
Personally, I think that Candle's idea of a database where the Netroots rate the reliability of individuals in the MSM is pure gold and I'd LOVE to see TPM take this on. It would do more to clean up dreck like Nagourney's original article than any amount of ranting we do in the comments. Heck, I'll volunteer to help make it happen.
It would become one-stop shopping for folks who are interested in truth and not journalistic egos.

I think the question should be exactly would it take for Adam to feel uncomfortable in his journalism ethics?

I think our entire media (print and tv) is a disgrace. I find little comfort in NPR and find them to lean ro the right. I find little comfort in anything coming from the MSM. I am thankful for the internet.

The only TV I watch is Keith Olbermann and I agree with another poster who thought Rachel Maddow is/was sensational. I am a huge fan of Rachels.

What is amazing to me is how blatant the MSM is in its lopsided coverage. I have to look long and hard (and find it mainly on liberal blogsites) to find anything anti-McCain. It is hard to believe that some of the gaffes made by McCain would not be real headlines in another time (say pre-takeover of the media by big business).

I don't know about the rest of you, but if I give up buying cars and jewelry, nothing will change.

I can't believe no one's mentioned this yet:

NYT/CBS TELEPHONE POLL --
Total Number of Respondents: 1796
Number of White Respondents: 1338
Number of Black Respondents: 297

What an effective sampling method. I'm sure the results are accurate.

Hmm... If the headline is incorrect why is it still what's up on the web site?

The disparity between headlines and content is an epidemic throughout the media...print and electronic.