{ link » Subject•Article}
The Chicago Tribune's subject article confirms a telling statistic I noted previously — Obama won more than 9 in 10 blacks. In its presentation, however, the article is contrived to obscure:
The Chicago Tribune's subject article confirms a telling statistic I noted previously — Obama won more than 9 in 10 blacks. In its presentation, however, the article is contrived to obscure:
RACE EMERGING AS ISSUE IN DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNNote, if you will, the emphasized [by me] subtleties, which I submit are not unintentional shadings of the purported factual presentation:
By Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons, WASHINGTON BUREAU Tribune reporter John McCormick contributed from Chicago
March 13, 2008
WASHINGTON - Despite the celebration of Barack Obama's electoral successes as evidence that the nation has moved beyond racial divisions, signs are emerging of a small but unmistakable race-based resistance to his historic White House bid.
Beneath Obama's easy win in Mississippi on Tuesday, exit polls show a state polarized along racial lines, with white Democrats there rejecting his candidacy 70 percent to 26 percent, while 9 of 10 blacks voted for him. It's a dramatic reflection of a recurrent pattern most pronounced in the South. [my emphasis added]
- The phrase "unmistakable race-based resistance" pronounces the editorial conclusion in the leading paragraph. Pardon me, but "9 of 10", and more accurately "92% to 8%", is significantly more "unmistakable" than "70% to 26%".
- The unmistakable conclusion, as I observed previously, is race-based support for Obama.
- The phrase "rejecting his candidacy" is much more emphatic, let alone misleading, than the phrase "voted for him".
No comments:
Post a Comment