6/15/2004 01:33:41 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

There are few things in the battle of ideas that makes me more gleeful than to find an opponent who has managed to wedge itself into such a position that the only means of escape would require it to gnaw off its own journalistic credibility.

For instance, the LA Times trying to explain their poll showing Kerry trouncing Bush nationally fits this category. It now appears that their much-ballyhooed poll consisted of a sample containing 38% Democrats and 25% Republicans. Who would have thought, with that sampling, that Kerry would enjoy a 7% lead?

So, here's the rub. Was the LA Times guilty of bad polling (it already was a registered voter poll, which is typically skewed left) or intentional bias? My first reaction, of course, is bias. Whether intentional or institutional (it is possible that the LA Times believes nationwide that Republicans are that outnumbered by Democrats), the results are intolerable. Publishing a poll like this in the most circulated daily in the state certainly could affect the outcome in California, which, surprisingly, is not yet completely in Kerry's bag.

Then again, incompetence is not all that farfetched. We are talking of an industry where the most elite of journalistic sources have published news stories that have been completely fabricated. Journalists operated unchecked, and were allowed to repeatedly author falsehoods and manipulate public opinion by laptop. In short, monkeys on crack would have at least had the inclination to crumple up some of the false stories and throw them back at their authors.

So, LA Times, which is it?

|||108732520103993112|||Prejudice or Incompetence