Right wing media spin in CNN/Yahoo articles on Clark leading Bush

[Democat]

What the hell is this right wing Bush ass kissing spin doing in the middle of the CNN article about Clark leading Bush:

"The GOP would point out -- and they would be right -- that the approval rating in the autumn before an election is not a good predictor of how the election will turn out," said CNN poll analyst Keating Holland, pointing out that Ronald Reagan's approval rating was in the 40-percent range in fall 1983, a year before he was re-elected in a landslide.

"This poll may not have predictive value, yet still show that the president is in trouble. Fifty percent is not trouble yet, but if keeps slipping, it might be."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/22/elec04.poll.bush.clark/index.html

Why don't they mention Bush's father instead of Reagan? Bush Sr. was at higher approval ratings at this time and he lost.

The Yahoo article in this same poll is titled this:

Clark Tied With President Bush in Poll

But says this:

Clark, a retired Army general, garnered 49 percent support to Bush's 46 percent, which is essentially a tie given the poll's margin of error.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20030922/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_bush_poll_1

The right wing media doesn't say that Democrats are "tied", when they are losing by 3%. It's another way for the media whores to spin for Bush.

When Bush is at 45%, will they say that he's "statistically" still at 50%, within the margin of error?

The media bias in the U.S. is unbelievable.

[rabid_nerd]

1. Buzz.. Wrong!

They do so call it a tie.

"Gore in statistical deat heat"

Also remember, that basically ALL candidates were within the MoE of EACH OTHER _and_ BUSH...

[pa28]

2. Thank you for pointing this out

Notice how the writer did not even bother contacting a Republican source. He did the spinning for them by using an irrelevent quotation to back up his own padding. Lazy and biased at the same time!