Here's the kind of coverage a campaign can't buy, from the New York Times blog (UPDATE: The post has been altered since we wrote this and a new paragraph's been inserted - but without noting the change or acknowledging the original oversight. See below):
A fundraising analyst, Costas Panagopoulos of Fordham University, said this morning that the Clinton fund-raising total is likely to convey an impression of superiority to voters than Mr. Obama will have to battle against.Wow. Pretty damning indictment of Obama's prospects, wouldn't you say? But here's something Patrick Healy, the author of the post, fails to inform his readership. From Mr. Panagopoulos' bio page on his website:
"Clinton's blow-away third quarter fundraising total is likely to have, among other things, a profound psychological effect on voters," Mr. Panagopoulos said. "It will give the impression of growing Clinton strength -- both in terms of dollars and number of donors.""Obama also raised impressive sums," he added, "but he may be seen as languishing relative to previous quarters. Obama's lackluster third quarter intake, relative to previous quarters, reflects, at least in part, waning enthusiasm for his candidacy and diminishing prospects for an Obama victory."
Dr. Panagopoulos was selected by the American Political Science Association as a Congressional Fellow during 2004-2005, and he served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY).That should have been worthy of at least a mention, don't you think? After all, Mr. Panagopoulos describes Obama's campaign as "lackluster," "languishing," and suffering from "waning enthusiasm" and "diminishing prospects."
Mr. Healy should have asked whether his expert had ties to the Clinton campaign. failing that, Mr. Panagopoulos should have volunteered the information - even if this is his truly unbiased opinion.
Oh - and, for the record, the Panagopoulos bio doesn't say that he's a "fundraising expert," although he may well be. The subject's not even mentioned. This raises the question of how Mr. Healy found him in the first place. Was it a referral from Clinton's campaign? His readers deserve a clarification and explanation.
One last item: The Times piece says that "in recent weeks Clinton advisers and donors had asserted that he was probably on track to beat her again because his campaign was publicizing his success at recruiting new donors." Isn't that the old Rove trick of lowering expectations when you know you're going to do well?
Just a thought.
____________________________________
UPDATE: Mr. Healy's blog entry was altered some time after we posted this. This paragraph was inserted between the "Clinton's blowin' 'em away" quotes and the "Obama's lackluster" quotes:
Mr. Panagopoulos worked in Mrs. Clinton's Senate office in 2004-5 as a congressional fellow of the American Political Science Association; he said he is not supporting or advising her or any other candidate in the 2008 race.It's common practice when blogging to note such changes and corrections, to avoid the appearance that you're trying to mislead your readers. The post as originally written would not have noted this analyst's potential conflict of interest.
And we still don't know how Mr. Healy found him in the first place. As Atrios would say, "time to convene a blogger ethics panel."
____________________________________
... and Patrick Healy emailed me to say the following:
In answer to your question, I met Mr. Panagopoulos last year when I spoke to a different professor's Fordham class on politics and fundraising. He gave me a business card and we talk from time to time. I found him thoughtful about politics and fundraising, and he has been quoted in several papers before ... I asked him in the interview today if he was advising or supporting any candidates. He said no. I asked Clinton advisers; they said he wasn't on their team. I checked fundraising records; he has not donated to her or any other candidate. Still, after I received email about his congressional fellowship in 04-05 from folks who had a concern about Mr. Panagopoulos and bias, I added the graf about his ties to Clinton's Senate office.
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Dr. Costas Panagopoulos
How could anybody who reads the Times think otherwise.
RJ Eskow ... held senior-level positions at several major insurance carriers and has served as CEO of two companies. ... He specializes in health and medical issues...
Besides writing for The Huffington Post, he maintains his own blogs: ... and The Sentinel Effect for healthcare-related issues.
Does this mean what RJ Eskow wrote was HIS HONEST OPINION based on his life experience or do it mean HE HAS TO BE UNFAIRLY BIASED?
Either, both, or neither could be true. There isn't enough information to tell which is true.
I think under these circumstances, it would be unfair to simply state the fact that there POTENTIALLY could be bias without providing evidence that suggests it is LIKELY.
It's theoretically possible that RJ Eskow is a Nobel Laureate or a serial killer, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that it is any more likely to be true about him than it is true about the vast majority of people, including myself.
Was the harsher and slanted version printed on the front page, instead of the softer titled report? Both reports appear to be identical. Was it the news editors at NYT, or Healy himself?
When Hillary's campaign experessed admiration for Rove and his tactics and proudly proclaimed that they intended to adopt them, I was hardly surprised. You can see the similarities in their campaigns and in the tone of their supporters.
I could care less what the 'media' says. They've been proverbial lapdogs for this past administration, were eager propagandists for the 'swiftboaters' of Kerry and Gore, and were instrumental in pushing this war based on lies. It is up to each and every individual to cut through the spin and political gamesplaying to really inform themselves. You can tell by the comments here, who have the facts, and who could care less what the facts are as long as their candidate wins.
I dont know why anyone still bothers to read the "Gray Old Lady", a very apt name for the N.Y. Times. It masquerades as a liberal newspaper; but it is really the "Pravda" of goverment. Does anyone remembers Judy Miller;
their gloating when the duly elected president of Venezuela was deposed, and had to be brought back because of the clamoring of the people? Their glory days are gone, which go back to when they published the "Pentagon Papers."
All they have done lately is shill for the powers that be.
So a Hillary person says this...but it so happens to be the truth...Obama lovers may not want to hear it, but at some point they are going to have to wake up to reality!
Say buh bye to Obama's campaign...I am telling you now...going....going...gone!
You do not know what happened at the rally, and the 25,000 that showed up? Obama is the new and we love him to life.
You must be a lobbyist; since you love Hillary so much, who reminded us that "lobbyists are people too." And you must be a "people."
Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, the psychological effect it has on me is to make me like her even less. And I didn't much like her and her hawkish and unprogressive voting record before. Big deal, she sucks harder on more corporate you know whats.
Considering that Clinton's support is much more well-heeled than Obama's, the truth is that Obama has done a remarkable job of fundraising.
Their version is always the horse race, no subtilties allowed.
IMHO
all she is is bush in a dress
another war monger
anyone who believes she will get us out of iraq is folling themselves and gambling with the lives of all our soldiers
for our country's sake I hope the electorate wakes up soon
Just as we have been dumbed down as a society, bringing emotion into every discussion is bringing this country down,
Most of the regular folks I talk with say they will decide for themselves who they will vote for and they don't want Hillary shoved down their throats by the media or anyone else.
I do have to tell you though that in addition to the younger crowd, a lot of the Baby Boomers are moving to Senator Obama's camp.