This Saturday the Reuter's headline that I see is: Obama hits out at Clinton for negative campaign, last week it was: Barack Obama lashes out at rivals. So is the "Hits out" and "Lashes out" intentional to make him appear the violent black man? Or are these references just poor word choices. Does it reflect not so much political bias, but rather unconcious racial bias?
Some more from the articles below...
Inside today's article some of the additional comments are:
His comments came after a contentious television debate on Wednesday that focused largely on issues such as his controversial former pastor, his recent relationship with a 1960s radical, his remarks about small-town voters and his failure to wear a flag lapel pin.
No reminder of any of the few Clinton issues raised in the debate. Only a rehash of the distractions effecting Obama. This could be rationalized as the focus of the article, but it smacks of bias to me.
Clinton has seen her sizable advantage over Obama in Pennsylvania dwindle to a single-digit lead, but a Gallup daily tracking poll released on Saturday gave her a slight edge among Democrats nationwide -- putting her ahead of her rival in that ranking for the first time since mid-March.
No mention of all the other polls this week that highlighted Obama's increasing lead nationally. Just the one poll that is a positive for HRC.
So maybe I am just being overly sensitive due to lack of sleep, and I know it is easy for a partisan to see bias where none is, but it is frustrating to see this sort of language and reporting even in a Reuter's article. (Whom I tend to trust more than the big U.S. sources.)
Most likely it is just more of the attempt to portray this as a horse race, when in actuality one horse has already pulled up lame and needs to be put out to pasture.