What the fuck is wrong with the international media???

[Domitan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1340331,00.html

George W Bush moved yesterday to seize the political advantage after Osama bin Laden's extraordinary intervention in the US presidential election on Friday night.

The campaign descended into a final bout of acrimony yesterday as both sides attacked each other for making political capital out of the al-Qaeda leader's video address. But it appeared to be the incumbent who will gain any political advantage.

A Newsweek tracker poll published yesterday suggested the momentum may be moving in the incumbent's way. The poll predicted Bush to win by 50 per cent to Kerry's 44, compared with a 48-46 gap last week.

-----------------------

I've noticed this pattern before...why the fuck do respectable international media like Guardian, BBC, and sometimes CBC pick out the worst poll (e.g., Gallup in the past...and Newsweek for this one) to gloomily forecast a boost for Bush? I realize that most of these media outlets prefer Kerry, but why don't they use the more reliable polls that show Bush and Kerry being even or that there was no boost from bin Laden's tape???

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. gallup has a history of being right going back to 1932

most have not noticed (outside the US) that Gallup is partisan now

[WMliberal]

2. i thought it was 1936, the same year as the Literary Digest Poll

[cliss]

3. What I can't understand is, didn't any of them read

what Bin Laden had to say? Bin Laden's speech was riddled with insults and daggers to Bush and his family, in particular Poppy.

For Bush to now jump on this and say it's an advantage to him, is the absolute ultimate. Doesn't anybody read?