corrente

Well, maybe not on the editorial page. But what other interpretation should we put on this mystifying behavior?

[The] New York Times [has] some bad polling news for the president.

"Support for the war in Iraq has eroded substantially over the past several months, and Americans are increasingly critical of the way President Bush is handling the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll," they write.

Bush's approval rating "now stands at 46 percent, the lowest level of his presidency in The Times/CBS News Poll, down from 71 percent last March and a high of 89 percent just after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001."

In fact, Bush's disapproval rating of 47 percent is now higher than his approval rating.

There's lots more numbers and a graphic on the Web site.

But is the Times trying to defuse its own bombshell? An unsigned sidebar explains how its poll compares to other recent ones -- and why. In short: "The New York Times/CBS News Poll's main findings were consistent with trends in some other recent polls but somewhat more negative for Mr. Bush." But "in statistical terms" they're "virtually the same."
(via WaPo)

Looks like another cheap attempt at fake "balance" to me. Fact: Bush's approval rating sucks (anti-Bush). Interpretation: The fact doesn't matter (pro-Bush). But let's remember Okrent's Law (back):

The pursuit of balance can create imbalance, because sometimes something is true.

Question: When is the Times going to pursue what is true? Liberals have the facts on our side, we have nothing to fear from this!)

Answer: Not as long as Kit "Performing" Seelye, Judith "Kneepads" Miller, and Jodi Will-Whore-'Em are on the job ....