Is it just me, or is WaPo inconsistently describing American opinion on race relations under Obama?

[alp227]

Five days ago, I posted this on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x123517

regarding The Washington Post article "Many say U.S. race relations have improved under Obama, but divides remain" (Jan. 13). This was based on a Pew Research Center poll of Americans.

Today, the WaPo has this article based on its own poll conducted in conjunction with ABC News: "Fewer Americans think Obama has advanced race relations, poll shows" (Jan. 18)

The Jan. 13 article stated:

A majority of the African Americans who responded to the Pew survey said they believe Obama's election has improved race relations, though that number has shrunk since the heady days just after the election. Thirty-two percent of whites and 42 percent of Hispanics think relations have improved since then.

and

Nearly twice as many blacks now, 39 percent, as in 2007 say that the "situation of black people in this country" is better than it was five years earlier. Similarly, 56 percent of blacks and nearly two-thirds of whites say the standard-of-living gap between whites and blacks has narrowed in the past decade.

While the Jan. 18 article stated:

On the eve of President Obama's inauguration a year ago, nearly six in 10 Americans said his presidency would advance cross-racial ties. Now, about four in 10 say it has done so.

The falloff has been highest among African Americans. Last January, three-quarters of blacks said they expected Obama's presidency to help. In the new poll, 51 percent of African Americans say he has helped, a wider gap between expectations and performance than among whites.

Although most of all those polled view Obama's election as a mark of progress for all African Americans, three in 10 say it is not indicative of broader change. About two-thirds see Obama's election as a sign of progress for all blacks in the United States, a figure unchanged from last year, but about half say his time in office has not made much difference in race relations. One in eight say it has hurt relations.

So there's two articles that report about the same thing pretty much...slightly fewer Americans feel that Obama's election improved American race relations...but the titles are nearly opposite. I doubt if it's appropriate to lead off a story with "Many say" when in fact the "many" amount has shrunken.

[fasttense]

1. Seems to me the Washington Post is inconsistent on most things.

They seem to move from hiring neocons and RepubliCONS to decorate their editorial pages to providing some liberal content.

It's as if they have no sense of identity.

[Clio the Leo]

2. How did Reagan improve race relations? How did Bush?....

.... that article is a steamy pile of BS.

[Nancy Waterman]

3. The WP gets worse by the day

Important articles get pushed to the back pages while boring local stories of very minimal interest get huge coverage on the front page. The editorial page is drowning in right wing drivel. Occasionally, there will be a well done, well-investigated story, but that is rare. My husband calls it the Washington Fish Wrap.

The incoherence on race relations is part of a larger picture of its incoherence on everything.

[Romulox]

4. I'll have to echo this. WaPo, like NYT, doesn't seem to understand that an internet audience

doesn't care about their local sports teams (how many times can they possibly run the Washington Caps on the front page?), where a local park will be located, etc. etc.

Perhaps a frontpage for national visitors is in order? In the case of the NYT, the problem is in process of resolving itself.

[Cha]

5. Exposing the wapo..

is always a good thing.