An article in tomorrow’s L.A. Times describes the litany of missteps by Martha Coakley — from running an ad equating the World Trade Center with greed to saying that Catholics shouldn’t work in emergency rooms to calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan to running an ad that misspells the name of the state she wants to represent, and so on and so on. The numerous polls showing Scott Brown ahead are given prominent play.
Ha, ha! Of course, the article does not say one word about any of that! I just made all of that up.
You didn’t believe me, did you??
So how does the L.A. Times cover the story of Scott Brown’s surge against this clownish candidate?
Would it help you to know what Obama’s take is? OK. It is that Scott Brown would endanger his health care plan. This is the concern he expresses in a robocall:
In Washington, I’m fighting to curb the abuses of a health insurance industry that routinely denies care. . . . [I]t’s clear now that the outcome of these and other fights will probably rest on one vote in the United States Senate.
Now do you have a guess as to the L.A. Times spin?
Healthcare overhaul may depend on Massachusetts Senate race
President Obama and other Democrats are in a fight for Ted Kennedy’s seat and his cause, campaigning for Martha Coakley over Republican Scott Brown, who could vote down the bill if seated in time.
President Obama on Friday threw himself into the Massachusetts Senate race where a surging Republican candidacy imperils his signature healthcare plan.
A Republican win Tuesday in the race to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) would strip Democrats of their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate and allow the GOP to block legislation with filibusters. Healthcare legislation has passed both chambers on party-line votes, but a reconciled final version must still be written and approved by both houses.
Yup, that lines up pretty well with the White House talking points. Thursday’s shocker of a poll showing Brown up by 4 points is mentioned . . . in the 10th paragraph. (Will it be past the jump in the print edition?) The poll is not mentioned in the headline. Or the opening paragraphs. Because the thrust of the story is not Brown’s momentum.
Left entirely unmentioned: Brown’s internal poll showing him up by 11 points — or Coakley’s internal poll showing Brown up by 3.
See, I don’t think Obama said it was OK to mention those. Hopefully that explains the omission to your satisfaction.
L.A. Times print readers have been kept in the dark about the Brown surge until now. Before today’s article, the previous newsprint assessment of Brown’s chances came Thursday, when the paper’s readers learned that Brown “appears to be within striking distance” of Coakley, with “some polls” showing the race is “as close as a few points.”
Now Democrats are reduced to claiming that Coakley is “within striking distance” of Brown. What a difference a day makes.
One wonders: if Brown actually wins, will this paper’s print readers be caught by surprise?