Today, the three news outlets websites covered Sen. John McCain’s economic proposal in three separate ways.The Washington Post was the most aggressive in its distinction that McCain’s plans are just a continuation of Bush economic policies and only help the rich, stating that McCain wanted to increase the amount of money that comes out of the seniors' pockets for Medicare.
The Los Angeles Times critiqued the plan less harshly than the Post did, but still seemed to explain the economic principles of McCain’s plan as Bush cronyisms.
The New York Times appeared to take the fairest approach, while explaining the facts behind McCain’s tax cuts and decreased spending, but not framing them in an unfair way. As opposed to the Post, The NY Times, actually explained who would have some of their Medicare drug benefits cut, only singles who make more than $80,000 per year or couples who make upwards of $160,000 per year.
It is clear that a contrarian Republican angle had been chosen by those writing on the Post’s website today.
As for The NY Times story about Sen. Clinton running for governor of New York, should she lose out on the presidency, the other news outlets did not cover such speculation. The idea of such a scenario isn’t what is important. The reason this article was printed is to further the idea that her run at the Democratic presidential nomination is hopeless with the deficit she has.
In all, The Post did a poor job of fairly explaining McCain’s economic plan, which was probably the paper’s goal in the first place. Kudos go out to The NY Times and to a lesser extent the LA Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment