By Daniel Politi

The NYT highlights that, despite the rhetoric, both parties have agreed that the government should be involved, but "the ideological clashes are ... more about whom it should try to rescue." In the end though, their results could be similar, since it's probably impossible to separate the individuals from the markets, because each would suffer if the other is doing badly.

The NYT's Paul Krugman analyzes their proposals and says that, just as with health care, each candidate's policy tells "a tale that is seriously at odds with the way they're often portrayed." McCain, who is often referred to as an independent maverick, "offers neither straight talk nor originality" as he offers traditional right-wing views. Obama is seen as "a transformational figure," but his proposals "tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox." For her part, Clinton, who "we're assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies," offers proposals that "continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive."

The Post takes a look at Obama's huge success in raising funds through the Internet and says that in the past two months the senator has "rewritten the rules of raising campaign cash." The key to his "elaborate marketing effort," which involves spending heavily on Internet ads, seems to be that his campaign doesn't ask for money at every possible turn and instead has pursued a "strategy of slow-walking its way into supporters' wallets."

Por Daniel Politi para Today's Papers de Slate Magazine

Extracto en español: Slate señala que, aunque el tema de la crisis hipotecaria sigue siendo de gran relevancia para algunos medios,  la atención de la prensa se centró en el debate de ayer entre Obama y Clinton que no respondió a las expectativas de que ésta última mostraría un perfil mucho más agresivo ante su adversario.

Clinton siguió tratando de explotar el asunto de que Obama plagió frases de sus discursos; Obama criticó a Clinton diciendo que es pura palabra y nada de hechos. Aunque The Wall Street Journal elogió partes del discurso de Clinton, especialmente el cierre, ni éste diario ni The New York Times consideran que esto sea suficiente para que recupere el momentum.

USA Today and the Washington Post lead with, while the Los Angeles Times devotes its top nonlocal spot to, yesterday's debate between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which, despite speculation that the former first lady would be more agressive, was a largely cordial affair with a few jabs and disagreements interspersed throughout. Everyone goes high with one of the most memorable quotes of the night, which came when the issue of Obama's "plagiarism" was brought up and Clinton riffed on one of his trademark phrases: "Lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox." Obama also criticized Clinton for frequently saying he is all talk and no action, which he said implies that those who have supported him "are somehow delusional."

During the debate, there were disagreements over health insurance (surprise!) and although the resignation of Fidel Castro was tied in to the usual argument over whether the U.S. president should meet with any head of state without preconditions, the LAT notes the contenders "managed to sound similar despite differing views." Everyone mentions Clinton's closing statement, which the WSJ says was "one of her most elegant, memorable moments of the long campaign." Overall though, both the NYT and WSJ say it didn't seem like Clinton was able to do anything that would change the campaign or take away from Obama's momentum.

The WP has a new poll that shows Clinton holds a narrow lead over Obama in Ohio, while the two candidates are pretty much tied in Texas. The polls show that Clinton's traditional supporters have largely stayed with her, "but she has yet to make deep inroads into Obama's core supporters," says the Post. It's difficult to overstate the importance of Texas and Ohio for Clinton, as even her husband said this week it'd be difficult for her to continue without victories there.

The NYT fronts a look at how Clinton's supporters are seeing her latest campaign finance report as a "road map" of the mismanagement of her campaign. Clinton spent lots of money on food and lodging, but what has resulted in the most raised eyebrows is how much she paid her senior consultants. As the LAT notes in its own story about Clinton's finances, the figures reveal that she paid "her communications director twice as much in one month as Obama paid his communications director in a year." Overall, "Clinton has paid vastly more for staff and accouterments and less on the services that directly win votes," says the LAT, which also notes Obama spent more on polling and advertising. There are suggestions that Clinton's campaign spent as much as it did out of the belief that the race would be over quickly and was caught unprepared for the long struggle. But, of course, as Democratic consultant Jim Jordan tells the NYT: "These budgetary post-mortems tend to follow a familiar pattern; winners are by definition smart, and losers are dumb and wasteful."

On the other side of the race to the White House, everyone covers the fallout from yesterday's NYT article that insinuated Sen. John McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist. "Obviously, I'm very disappointed in the article; it's not true," McCain said. (Small quibble: Since the NYT gave such prominent Page One play to the original story, shouldn't it devote at least some front-page real estate to the repercussions and denial? Instead, the paper chooses to reefer the story.) The LAT fronts a look at how the story ignited a debate that "raged across the Internet, cable television, and talk radio." Regardless, McCain and the Republican Party tried to turn the situation to their advantage by mentioning the story in fundraising pitches.

Meanwhile, the Post fronts a look at how some of McCain's key advisers are lobbyists, even as he has often railed against their profession and the influence of special interests in Washington. The WP points out that "lobbyists are essentially running his presidential campaign," which many see as hypocritical. "He has a closer relationship with lobbyists than he lets on," the head of a government watchdog group tells the paper. Coincidentally, the NYT mentioned these types of relationships in its story yesterday, but they were overshadowed by the implications of the affair. Ultimately, even if the allegations of the affair don't get very far, we might end up looking at yesterday's NYT story as the point where journalists began to look at McCain's record with a more critical eye. The Post notes that, by one count, there are at least 59 lobbyists currently raising money for McCain.

As if that wasn't enough trouble for McCain, the Post fronts, and the NYT mentions inside, news that the senator received a letter from the Federal Election Commission yesterday warning him that he can't withdraw from the public financing system. The FEC chairman said McCain has to clear up issues regarding a loan he took out that was partly secured with the federal money as collateral. It's a complicated issue and one that has potentially devastating implications for McCain, who would be limited to spending $54 million during the primary season (he's already spent $49 million). In his letter, the chairman said the senator wouldn't be able to leave the public system until there's a vote, which is impossible since there aren't enough commissioners for a quorum. McCain's campaign contends that the lack of quorum makes the letter unenforceable, which is a view the NYT seems to agree with by saying the issue probably won't be resolved before Election Day.

He couldn't just wait 12 days? "Let's face it. It's over," writes the Post's Al Kamen, who takes a look at the numbers and concludes that, "barring a serious meltdown ... or a sensational revelation," Obama will be the nominee. So, he's opening up the contest to guess whom Obama will pick as his running mate. "Don't worry," Kamen writes, "If Clinton's campaign somehow miraculously resuscitates, we'll do a Clinton veep contest."

por Daniel Politi

La gran noticia del día se difundió muy tarde para la edición impresa de los diarios: Fidel Castro renunció. Pero LAT se las arregló para incluir una breve nota. Así, los reflectores de los diarios norteamericanos se enfocaron sobre la aparente gran derrota del presidente de Pakistán en las votaciones para el Congreso. La información electoral pasó prácticamente desapercibida. Sin embargo...

Slate reporta: The LAT and NYT front looks at how Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been pumping up their populist rhetoric to appeal to voters who are anxious about the economy. Blue-collar voters are a particularly important part of the electorate in today's primary in Wisconsin as well as in Ohio, where voters will go to the polls on March 4. The WSJ also fronts a look at blue-collar voters and says that the winner of the Democratic contest "may well be determined by white men."

Some worry that pervasive racist and sexist attitudes among many of these working-class men, who make up an important percentage of voters in several key swing states, could end up helping Sen. John McCain. 

Comentario del Observatorio de Medios UIA: Resulta llamativo que la revista de análisis de medios Slate no haya hecho referencia a la nota de primera plana del Washington Post: Clinton intensifica sus ataques contra Obama. Plagiarism, Financing Accusations Come on Eve of Wisconsin Primary ((ver nota completa: Clinton Steps Up Attacks on Obama).

La cadena CNN calculó que Obama tiene mil 181 delegados y Hillary mil 173

por Grupo Reforma

Washington DC,  Estados Unidos (12 de febrero de 2008).- El precandidato demócrata, Barack Obama, superó por primera vez a Hillary Clinton en número de delegados tras sus triunfos en Washington D.C, Virginia y Maryland, según proyecciones de medios estadounidenses.

La cadena CNN calculó que Obama tiene mil 181 delegados y Hillary mil 173.

Con sus victorias del martes en Washington D.

C, Virginia y Maryland, el senador de Illinois ha ganado ocho votaciones consecutivas contra la ex primera dama, todas después del 5 de febrero, cuando cerca de la mitad de los estados del país escogió a sus candidatos presidenciales.

Sin embargo, Clinton, quien aspira a convertirse en la primera Presidenta de Estados Unidos, aún puede recuperar terreno con las primarias de Ohio (141 delegados) y, sobre todo, de Texas, que entrega 193 representantes y donde tendrá especial importancia el voto hispano que ya le ayudó en California y Arizona.

Durante su discurso tras el triunfo en los tres estados, Obama agradeció a los votantes y dijo que todavía falta un largo camino por recorrer.

"Estamos en camino sabemos que nos falta un buen trecho para superar décadas de influencia del dinero (...) sabemos que el camino no será fácil", dijo Obama.

Triunfa McCain en Virginia, Maryland y Washington D.C

Entre los republicanos, John McCain venció a su rival Mike Huckabee en las primarias de Virginia, Maryland y el Distrito de Columbia, informaron las cadenas de televisión estadounidenses.

De esta forma McCain consolida su candidatura a la Casa Blanca, despegándose aun más de Huckabee.

Por Gerardo Cárdenas 

(Especial para el Observatorio de Medios UIA)

El fin de semana (9-10 de febrero) sucedieron cosas interesantes; mucho de lo que ocurrió tiene que ver con lo que se ha estado comentando en el observadorio: las búsquedas de identidad. Lo que ocurrió dejó un ambiente todavía más complejo en la carrera presidencial demócrata. Para muestra, tres botones:

1) Calladito, calladito, Obama ganó el pasado fin de semana las primarias en Maine, Washington, Nebraska y Louisiana, está virtualmente igualado en número de delegados con Hillary Clinton según proyecciones de AP, y está en empate estadístico con la ex Primera Dama en intención de voto según una encuesta liberada hoy por Gallup (46% de Hillary contra 44% de Obama). Este martes se vuelven a agarrar, con las primarias de Virginia, Maryland y el Distrito de Columbia.

2) Como resultado de lo anterior, Patti Solís Doyle, la jefa de campañaa de Hillary, ha mordido el polvo y acaba de ser sustituida por Maggie Williams, quien fue una de las figuras clave para sacar del atolladero de Mónica Lewinski a la pareja Clinton, hace ya algún tiempo.

La campaña de Hillary emitió un comunicado en el cual Patti Solís y Maggie Williams se juraban amistad eterna, con lo cual uno puede imaginar el nivel de los sombrerazos al interior de la campana Clinton.

Caben dos preguntas acá: ¿no era clave Patti Solís para amarrar el también clave voto latino, o éste ya se da por descontado? Aguas.

La llegada de Maggie Williams, quien es afroamericana, da idea también de un cierto nivel de ansiedad de Hillary por captar el voto negro. Puede que ya sea tarde. Pero el otro lado de la moneda es que Maggie Williams tiene la mala sangre necesaria para que la campana de Hillary haga frente al golpeteo incesante de Obama. La gente de Maggie Williams le va a buscar todas las fallas posibles a Obama, y a sobredimensionar las que encuentre.

La otra pregunta es ¿cuanto más puede sobrevivir Hillary a base de berrinches? Sus berrinches ya le han costado el puesto a cuando menos tres altos colaboradores, incluyendo Patti Solís, e incluyen la regañada más o menos pública a su marido por hacer lo que ahora Maggie Williams va a tener que hacer a fuerzas: subirle el tono a la campañaa.

3- Algunos dirán que exagero, pero quien haya visto anoche los Grammys se dio cuenta que hay una revolución afroamericana en camino. Los artistas negros no sólo arrasaron con los premios (Kanye West, Alicia Keys, Herbie Hancock), sino que se apuntaron a un discurso claramente obamista. Hancock se tiró un discurso que era una glosa al “Yes we can” de Obama de hace algunos meses. O sea que Hollywood sigue apuntando muy clarito para noviembre próximo.

  (Gerardo Cárdens es comunicador egresado de la Ibero)

por Daniel Politi en today’s papers de Slate Magazine  The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox all lead with Mitt Romney's surprise withdrawal from the presidential race, which automatically made Sen. John McCain the all-but-official Republican nominee. Romney made his announcement before a large, clearly unhappy audience at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, many of whom shouted out that the former Massachusetts governor should stay in the race and "Fight on!" But Romney said that he was stepping aside for the good of the party, insisting that if he were to stay in the race, it "would make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win." Romney made up his mind to quit the race after meeting with advisers on Wednesday, who made it clear that it would be virtually impossible for him catch up to McCain after the losses on Super Tuesday. McCain spoke at CPAC a few hours after Romney and was met with loud boos, which highlighted how the senator has to focus wholeheartedly on repairing relations with the GOP's conservative base if he hopes to get widespread support for his candidacy. Even though more of the GOP establishment continues to fall in line behind McCain, many conservatives continue to be deeply skeptical of the senator. President Bush will effectively endorse McCain without actually naming him in a speech before the conservative audience today.  

All the papers try to figure out what exactly went wrong for Romney, a candidate who had the support of Republican insiders and millions of dollars at his disposal. But Romney's collapse is "an important reminder that what impresses in political backrooms does not always impress voters," says the LAT. Despite sinking $35 million of his own money (the WP says it was $50 million) and raising millions more, he still faced one fundamental problem that almost all the papers summarize with one word: "authenticity."

Romney's more liberal past as Massachusetts governor made it easy for his rivals to attack him as a flip-flopper and raise doubts about his agenda and true beliefs. Although it seems concerns about his Mormon faith dropped from the spotlight in recent weeks, many think it was what allowed Mike Huckabee to rise in Iowa, which led to a collapse in Romney's strategy of gaining momentum from the early contests. The WSJ fronts an interesting look at how "Romney's campaign exposed a surprisingly virulent strain of anti-Mormonism that had been largely hidden to the general public." This came as a shock to many in the church, who had no idea that their religion had so many vocal critics. "The Romney campaign has given the church a wake-up call. There is the equivalent of anti-Semitism still out there," a Mormon sociologist tells the paper. Despite his positive words about McCain yesterday, Romney didn't endorse the senator and emphasized he would keep his delegates' support "all the way to the convention." He mentioned that he would "fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976," which was seen by many as a hint that he isn't going anywhere and plans to run in 2012. Slate's John Dickerson notes that "Romney had his best political moment of the race while expiring" and if the rumors of a future run for the White House are true, perhaps yesterday's speech "marked that beginning as much as this ending."  Although Mike Huckabee continues in the race no one thinks he has much of a chance even if he does win a few more primaries, as is largely expected. Many have raised the possiblity that he's angling for the vice president slot, but that possibility is looking increasingly unlikely. In a WSJ op-ed piece, the president of the Club for Growth, former Rep. Pat Toomey, writes that "Huckabee on the ticket would be a disaster" due to his tax-raising record. "Picking him would only make it more likely that conservatives will sit on their hands come November." On the Democratic side, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both turned their attention to McCain as voters are more likely to specifically think about which candidate will provide a better challenge to the Republican candidate. The Post fronts a look at Clinton's appearance in Virginia yesterday and notes that she only mentioned Obama's name once but repeatedly attacked McCain. Meanwhile, cash continued to flow and Clinton's campaign managed to raise $6.4 million since Super Tuesday. It's an impressive number, but Obama continues to be ahead and has received $7.2 million.  

 

Un lastre en México y EU: la política de identidad, de clase, raza, género o patriotera

Por José Carreño Carlón publicado en El Universal

(Versión especial para el Observatorio de Medios UIA) 

Parece clara una realidad extendida en México y en el mundo caracterizada por la existencia de una diversidad de opciones de consumo material, político, cultural, mediático o espiritual. En unos casos esto ha propiciado la dispersión e incluso la fragmentación de los grupos o de las fuerzas representativas de esas opciones. Y en otros casos ha generado la división y a veces la polarización de las sociedades entre dos grandes propuestas. En estas condiciones tan proclives a la división suelen surgir paradójicamente pretensiones de imponer unanimidades, con la afirmación de la posición propia como la única correcta, justa o deseable y con la exclusión de las demás, supuestamente por incorrectas, injustas o indeseables.  

Ejemplos ilustrativos de lo anterior aparecen en la agenda del debate público de esta semana.  Por una parte están los procesos electorales internos de los partidos políticos estadounidenses, presentes con intensidad en nuestros medios y en nuestras conversaciones cotidianas. (Con una diferencia: mientras en EU los resultados del “supermartes” electoral comparten titulares con la dramática entrada de su economía en recesión, en México sigue dejándose en segundo plano el desplome que ya acarrea a la economía de nuestro país la situación del país vecino.)  

Pero por otra parte están los temas de la agenda mexicana que dividen hoy a los políticos de nuestro país. Y aquí aparecen las propuestas de una reforma energética, tema que uno de los bandos políticos pretende erigir en asunto de división nacional, de guerra prolongada, si bien hasta la fecha esta iniciativa no parece haber logrado pasar de las agendas de los partidos y de los medios a la agenda del público.  

Respecto del tema estadounidense —establecido por los medios como parte de la agenda pública mexicana— es interesante saber que, según el editorial de ayer de The New York Times, los estadounidenses han dejado claro que están hartos de las divisiones partidistas y se muestran temerosos de sus riesgos.  

De acuerdo con las motivaciones de sus votos, expresadas en las encuestas de salida de las urnas el pasado martes, los electores del Partido Demócrata hicieron ver que en el centro no hay un debate entre programas, sino que la llamada política de identidad —de raza, de género o de clase— preside peligrosamente la pelea entre Barack Obama y Hillary Clinton. Mientras que en el bando republicano, la extrema derecha está tratando de herir de muerte a su puntero, el moderado John McCain, con la política de identidad basada en apelaciones patrioteras de nación y de partido.   

Apelación patriotera México-EU

 El Times expresa su temor de que en los siguientes meses —de aquí a la definición de las candidaturas en las convenciones de cada partido, en agosto y, finalmente, a la elección presidencial de noviembre— los actores políticos seguirán mostrando sus dientes de pelea y atacándose a morir, dejando al país más dividido de lo que le deja la actual presidencia de W. Bush. 

A partir del antidemocrático punto de partida de su campaña —el de su victoria inevitable— es sabido que la pareja Clinton fue la que primero abrió fuego contra Obama en el momento en que el crecimiento del aspirante negro desafió aquel arrogante punto de partida. El problema es que los ataques de los Clinton echaron en contra de su campaña una impresionante cantidad de primo-votantes, jóvenes en los que Obama despertó la disposición de acudir a las urnas por primera vez, y quienes anticipan ahora, en mensajes al NY Times, que no se molestarán en acudir a votar si el candidato del Partido Demócrata no es el propio Obama.

Esto, en respuesta al pronunciamiento del diario neoyorquino a favor de la esposa del ex presidente. No es así como funciona la democracia, reprende el Times a los jóvenes obamistas.  Para complicar más las cosas, del lado republicano la ultraderecha se monta en otra expresión de la política de identidad, la expresión patriotera, que (con la política de identidad de clase, raza o género) se erigen en lastres del desarrollo político cuando tienden a polarizar a las sociedades a favor de esos valores, excluyendo los valores compartidos en el marco de los intereses generales que cruzan los valores de las identidades.    

jose.carreno@uia.mx   

PERFIL

José Carreño Carlón: Premio Nacional de Periodismo por artículo de fondo, director de la oficina presidencial de comunicación, son algunos datos de una trayectoria de décadas en la comunicación pública. Profesor de derecho de la información de la UNAM y coordinador de periodismo de la Universidad Iberoamericana, realizó sus estudios de licenciatura en la Universidad Nacional y los de pos-grado en Leiden (Países Bajos) y Navarra (España)              

Por  Daniel Politi Today's Papers en Slate magazine

The New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal's world-wide newsbox lead with the latest from the Democratic presidential race. There was little time to rest after the biggest primary day in history as Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign claimed she came out on top becaues of her victories in big states, while Sen. Barack Obama's aides pointed to his wins in more states as proof that he was the one who came out ahead.

Clinton revealed that she had lent her campaign $5 million in late January and she asked supporters to give $3 million to her campaign over three days. Obama's campaign gave word that he raised more than $3 million yesterday, on top of the $32 million he had raised in January.

The Los Angeles Times goes with a two-story lead looking at the reasons behind Clinton's victory in California and Sen. John McCain's continuing problems with trying to get the conservative Republican base on his side. Some say the only way McCain can get their support is to pick a very conservative running mate.  

USA Today leads with a dispatch from Mosul, where U.S. troops will probably have more trouble rooting out al-Qaida in Iraq because the militants have apparently learned from their mistakes and are cultivating better relationship with regular citizens. In Mosul, al-Qaida militants warn civilians before bomb attacks and are not enforcing strict Islamic laws, which is a marked contrast with how they acted in other parts of the country. This makes it less likely that the residents of Iraq's third-largest city would want to join the U.S. military to fight the insurgents.  

As Clinton and Obama get ready for the next phase of what will undoubtedly be a long contest for delegates, both campaigns are trying to describe themselves as the underdogs in the battle. But it's clear that Clinton is losing ground in the battle for dollars and the papers report that several members of her campaign staff have agreed to work without pay this month. The NYT points out that Clinton is in a tighter spot financially largely because of "fatigue" among her donors, who have been hit up for money since her Senate re-election campaign in 2006. Still, Obama said yesterday that Clinton had the clear advantage because of her well-known name and a slight edge in superdelegates.  

There was probably no sweeter win for Clinton than California. There were predictions that the race would be tight but she easily won the state thanks largely to the support of Latinos, who accounted for 30 percent of voters, and women. Obama tried to reach out to Latino voters by emphasizing his support for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. But some now think Obama's assumption that Latinos would care deeply about licenses was mistaken and he could have received more traction by talking about education and the economy. 

So, who won Tuesday? Depends on who you ask. As USAT notes, there were several different delegate counts going around yesterday because of the complicated formulas used by the Democrats that "could give a certified public accountant a migraine." The WP cites the Associated Press numbers and says Clinton won 737 delegates yesterday and Obama got 699, with almost 300 still to be awarded. The NYT says Clinton has a slight edge with 892 delegates to Obama's 716. The WSJ prefers to go with 1,000 delegates for Clinton and 902 for Obama. (Slate's Christopher Beam takes a looks at the different numbers.)

Every day that passes seems to bring more questions about whether the Democratic contest will go on until the convention in August. The NYT reports that the party's chairman, Howard Dean, came out yesterday to say that the candidates should do everything possible to avoid that scenario from materializing. Dean estimated there will be a nominee "in the middle of March or April" and emphasized that if one hasn't been selected, "then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement." What kind of arrangement Dean has in mind that would make either candidate want to drop out of such a long (and expensive) race isn't clear.

Everyone points to the likelihood that the candidates will continue trading victories in the upcoming states as Obama has an edge in the next few contests this month, but Clinton is favored to win more states in March. 

José Carreño comenzó la plática mencionando que estos medios (como el New York Times) toman sus posturas de un modo muy interesante. Es una decisión de los consejos directivos y editoriales. Es explícita y no hipócrita ni enmascarada como los medios suelen hacerlo en el sur de Europa y en América Latina. En estos lugares hay un clientelismo con distintos poderes (políticos o económicos) y esto los lleva a enmascarar sus políticas informativas y sus opiniones.  

En el caso de Estados Unidos, los  medios toman partido explícitamente. Sin embargo, esto no implica un manejo desviado en términos informativos. Por ejemplo, el viernes (25 de enero) se presentó esta decisión, a partir de una resolución del jueves en la noche, pero aunque el periódico apoye a Clinton, durante el resto del fin de semana, todos los articulistas del New York Times han sido muy favorables a Obama y muy críticos con Hillary. Si se revisan los artículos, se puede constatar esto. Por otro lado, no se excluyen las opiniones divergentes ni se esconden los aspectos favorables de los opositores. Se habla por ejemplo de la toma de partido de la familia Kennedy y de Al Gore en favor de Obama. 

Posteriormente, cuando Mario Campos cuestiona quién toma este tipo de decisiones y quienes constituyen la junta editorial, el maestro Carreño responde:Se supone que se hace una valoración de lo que más conviene a la sociedad norteamericana, obviamente de acuerdo a su perspectiva. Todo es subjetivo pero ellos aparentemente hacen una valoración de las capacidades de los candidatos, aspirantes a los puestos, de los partidos y de su experiencia, sus posiciones y su trayectoria. Luego sacan un promedio y toman una decisión de acuerdo a esto. 

Más adelante, al preguntársele cómo se puede lograr que esto no incida en su cobertura y que los reporteros no se sientan presionados, el entrevistado responde: Con reglas y códigos de conducta muy claros por parte de los medios. Éstos no se alteran por la decisión de los directivos. Deben seguir haciendo su trabajo, elaborando notas que tengan un balance cuando se trate de posiciones en competencia o controversia. No deben confundir en la información las opiniones con los hechos. Incluso siguen la otra regla central del periodismo: la función selectiva. Entonces escogen lo que es más noticioso para su público (aunque esto no sea información favorable para Clinton). Por lo tanto, a pesar de que haya información que no los beneficie, deberán de tomarla en cuenta porque tiene un mayor valor noticioso y hay que pensar en su público que, en el caso del New York Times, es muy liberal.

El ejemplo de que esta publicación lo lleva a cabo,  es el hecho de haber presentado la postura que tomaron los Kennedy a favor de Obama porque es un tema que interesa a la gente y son personajes importantes para la política de Estados Unidos.  

Finalmente, Mario Campos preguntó acerca de los efectos políticos y de opinión pública que esta decisión del New York Times podría tener. Al respecto, José Carreño argumenta que:

Al final se hace un conteo, un buen balance de posibilidades. Tanto en el campo político electoral como en términos de opinión publica. Se toman en cuenta a los medios y esto permite hacer un balance al final de la campaña para hacer un cálculo en un sentido o en otro. Son rasgos de esta cultura política que ayudan a hacer una valoración del proceso y eventualmente acercarse a lo que finalmente sucederá.