NYT public editor Clark Hoyt thinks the U.S. news media might be getting a tad presumptive about the outcome of Tuesday's presidential election.
The Times and other news media got burned once before this year, in the New Hampshire primary. The coverage, reflecting respected polls and what reporters thought they saw on the ground, strongly suggested that Obama, fresh from victory in the Iowa caucuses, was going to defeat Hillary Clinton. The Times published a front-page article on the day of the voting that reported on a possible shake-up in the Clinton campaign staff and quoted an unnamed supporter as saying, “We’re all resolved to the probability that she’s not going to win New Hampshire, and the mood has turned very despondent — fatalistic, probably.” Two days later, the newspaper was asking how pollsters and news organizations failed to see the Clinton victory coming.
Now, Times editors and reporters say they are well aware of the danger of getting too far in front of events. Still, I think the coverage over time has created a strong expectation of an Obama victory and a Democratic sweep in Congress. If it does not happen, The Times and many other news organizations will have a lot of explaining to do. ...
Adam Nagourney, the chief political correspondent, said, “I don’t think it’s over, and I think coverage that suggests it is is irresponsible.” Still, he said, “you’ve got to reflect what’s going on.” What’s going on is that Obama is ahead in every national poll; he is drawing huge crowds and raising record amounts of money; he is leading or tied in critical states that McCain must win to have any chance; and McCain is saddled with an apparent recession, an unpopular war and an unpopular president from his party. None of which means he cannot win.
Nagourney wrote a front-page article on Oct. 24, under the headline, “In McCain’s Uphill Battle, Winning Is an Option,” that explored the ways the Republican candidate could prevail. The article said McCain would have to hold Republican states where Obama has him on the run and either convert a Democratic state like Pennsylvania or pick up a combination of swing states. “Not easy, but not impossible either,” it said. ...
There are only two days left until the next president is elected. I think The Times would be wise, in the words of my former colleague Tom Fiedler, dean of the College of Communication at Boston University, to “forgo the temptation of the horse race” and focus on issues and what the candidates are saying. That is just what the paper did Thursday, with articles on their positions on student loans and summarizing their final stump speeches.
... As Abramson (Jill, managing editor of news), a former Washington bureau chief, told me, “What I know from politics is anything can happen.”