On the day after we initiated our BeyondTimes column on the paper’s anti-Obama news coverage, the Obama campaign issued a scathing critique of the Times’ July 16 front-page story, “Poll Finds Obama Candidacy Isn’t Closing Divide on Race.” The Obama camp noted that the headline was not only misleading--Obama’s nomination alone cannot end racism in the United States--but that the Times’ poll results underlying the story conflicted with its conclusions. The details are discussed below. Meanwhile, on July 21 the Times ran yet another long, reverential profile of John McCain, perpetuating his “maverick” status while ignoring the long list of issues that brand him a predictable conservative.

Misrepresenting the Times Poll

Those reading the front-page portion of Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee’s July 16 story would learn that the latest poll showed that Americans remain sharply divided by race, and that blacks did not believe that Obama’s candidacy represents “significant improvement in race relations.” If they continued reading on page A12, this message would be amplified, leading to the conclusion that the poll had primarily tested racial attitudes, not Obama’s ability to win support among whites.

But as the Obama campaign pointed out, the poll actually showed that, contrary to the headlines and subheads, white voters favor the black candidate in many key areas. For example, on which candidate is seen as most likely to bring about change, whites favored Obama by 52% to 30%. Whites also saw Obama as more likely to improve the nation’s standing in the world (a 2-1 margin), and felt that the black Democrat cared about people like them (31%-23%).

That last result is particularly significant, as it appears to directly contradict the story’s headline about America’s racial divisions. In fact, the headline could have been “White Voters More Likely to Say Obama Cares About Them,” which would have sent a dramatically different message than that conveyed by the Times.

Reading the Times story, one would also be surprised to learn that Obama’s 31% favorability rating among whites is almost the same as McCain’s 31%, and that Obama trails among white voters by only 9%, which represents a much stronger showing among whites than that achieved by either Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004.

The story also misrepresented white attitudes toward Michelle Obama. Claiming that “racial dissension” was evident in Mrs. Obama’s 24% favorability rating among whites, the Times failed to put this number in the context of Cindy McCain’s 20% favorability among whites. And even reporter Nagourney later acknowledged that by omitting the fact that 72% of whites had no opinion of Mrs.Obama or did not know enough about her, her 24% favorability gave the erroneous impression that nearly 80% had an unpopular view.

The big picture: the Times either ignores polls favorable to Obama, or reinterpret them to minimize his level of support. Daily tracking polls in key swing states, a staple on Internet sites, are rarely included in the Times, fueling the paper’s misleading message as to the alleged closeness of the presidential race.

McCain the Maverick

Following its Sunday, July 13 front-page story comparing McCain to Theodore Roosevelt, the Times on July 21 wrote another lengthy tribute to the Republican nominee. This piece sought to bolster McCain’s “maverick” status, using multiple quotes to portray McCain as something other than the strong Bush ally that he has become.

For example, the Times quotes Republican Senator Lindsey Graham saying that after losing the 2000 nomination race to Bush, McCain was “liberated from party loyalty. It reinforced his impulse: I am going to be me.” The piece describes how McCain was “cooperating with the Democrats on so many issues,” was regularly “stepping over party lines “ and was a “frequent impediment to the White House” through 2006.

The Times has provided the Michael Doonesbury version of John McCain, the “maverick” Republican who put country ahead of Party. But that is not the John McCain who is the current Republican nominee, a fact that should be of primary interest to voters but that Times reporter David Kirkpatrick largely ignored.

A Contrast in Profiles

The Times and other media portray John McCain as his campaign desires--as an independent spirit, rather than as a candidate wedded to the failed economic and foreign policies of President Bush. But the standard profiles of Barack Obama send a less positive message.

In prior Times’ pieces and in the long Obama article in the current New Yorker (the one with the controversial cover), Obama is portrayed as fundamentally a politician, not an icon. While few if any Obama backers have seen him as other than a politician, journalists whose cynicism is sparked by the adoring crowds surrounding the Democratic nominee have made it their mission to bring him down to earth.

That’s why you read so much about Obama’s rise in Chicago politics, while hearing little about McCain’s relationship with Charles Keating, his flights on lobbyists’ planes, and the other aspects of his political career that do not fit the “maverick” image. The media has become obsessed with showing that Obama made political deals and alliances to get ahead, as if there are any voters who believe that one becomes a presidential nominee by keeping their distance from powerful people.

With Obama leading by as much as 50%-42% in the most recent Washington Post poll, and with daily tracking polls showing him ahead in swing states, the media appears increasingly desperate to create the illusion of a horse race. But we have come to expect more from the New York Times, which is why we will continue to monitor its coverage through Election Day.