I can't believe I'm writing about this. Government majors, eat your heart out.

Usually I steer away from discussing politics and would really never find anything that I felt strongly enough to write about. This, however, is just maddening.
I love the New York Times for its interesting pieces and how it manages to keep me in touch with what's generally going on. Their "World" section is great. But this is the first time that I've seen something that's really angered me.
The article is called "Election Night Guide (Popcorn Included)" by Katharine Q. Seelye
This is the link to the online version, which is where I read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04guide.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Obviously it's completely impossible for any media organization to be purely innocent in terms of non-bias. I acknowledge that Fox News is undoubtedly right-leaning, but while I admit that, I would ask that people also acknowledge that CNN, NBC, etc. etc. are as equally left-leaning. No need to argue which is more radical or which is more detrimental. That's just the way it is.

Now, I just started reading this article to see what to pay attention to, since election night does come around only once every four years and I'm a bit rusty. Some tips about which states to watch were appreciated, but I began to notice a trend. About halfway through, I was so shocked that I went back to the beginning and began reading through again, giving tally marks to a certain side when I saw a reference come up.

References to "Obama winning" or "McCain losing" appeared 10 times.
References to "Obama losing" or "McCain winning" appeared 1 time.

Of course these statements were all speculative, but that does not excuse blatant preference.
It begins with: "So many have predicted a lopsided victory for Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain that you might wonder why even to bother watching the returns on Tuesday night." Which is followed by a little stab of journalism, "The fact is, there is plenty of mystery" to keep the reader reading.
What follows is a veritable deluge of "if Obama wins" and "if McCain loses" that threatened to overtake all hope of getting anything else useful out of the entire article. All I wanted were facts of which states to look for (which it did attempt to break down nicely, which would have worked better had I not been fuming at the lopsided-ness).

Pro-Obama
1. "So many have predicted a lopsided victory for Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain that you might wonder why even to bother watching the returns on Tuesday night."
2. "If Mr. Obama wins it, Indiana could be the canary in the coal mine predicting disaster ahead for Mr. McCain"
3. "If [Obama] succeeds in the former capital of the Old Confederacy, he will most likely do exceedingly well the rest of the night."
4. "Subtracting Virginia from the Republican column would give Mr. McCain very few routes to 270 electoral votes."
5. "But it would be a bad sign for Mr. McCain if he cannot capture these [New Hampshire] mavericks"
6. "Again, if Mr. McCain loses [in Florida], his path narrows."
7. "If North Carolina votes for Mr. Obama, the map is likely to bleed blue for the rest of the night."
8. "If [Obama] wins [in Colorado], watch for chatter of a Democratic realignment."
9. "An Obama win would signal an important shift by Hispanics away from the Republican Party."
10. "Conventional wisdom suggests that if Mr. Obama wins, he will do so early"

Pro-McCain
1. "If Mr. McCain wins Pennsylvania, it would keep him alive and scramble the picture for Mr. Obama."

That's it.

I'll let you think about that.

As for the section entitled "Main Course", I have a whole different issue.
This is the only, single section where a pro-McCain reference can be found, which is immediately followed by this:
"And it would lead to grave pronouncements about racism and the so-called Bradley effect of whites not being honest about their preferences to pollsters. Surveys of voters leaving the polls in the April primary found that 19 percent said race played an important role in their decision (as they delivered the state to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by nine percentage points over Mr. Obama)."
That, if nothing else, is a blatant statement that if Pennsylvania votes McCain, it basically doesn't morally count because the people there are racist and that is the reason why they didn't vote Obama. Which is followed up by a nice demonstration of how they didn't vote for him in the primary. Give me a break, people. Just because some white people didn't vote for Obama doesn't mean they didn't because he's (half!!) African-American! And don't even get me started on how unreliable "surveys" are. I'm sure the race issue is a reason for some people, but not every single Caucasian person in this country, or in Pennsylvania for that matter.

There's also a little comment about Missouri being important and "usually...the winner" takes it, but that it has had voting problems in the past. This directly follows the racism accusation of Pennsylvania, insinuating that if it seems like McCain is pulling ahead in Missouri, it's a "voting problem" that will be sorted out later.

Also, I am so sick - almost to the point of screaming - of hearing tales about how Floridians were "cheated" out of their votes in 2004. I know the machines messed up. I know that it was a whole big controversy. I also know that there is a teensy tiny chance that somewhere, an INSIGNIFICANT portion of the votes may have been compromised. Do these "cheated" Floridians number more than 380,978? I really don't think so, as that is the official number by which Bush won the popular vote. "Oh, but, obviously those votes were cast for the wrong person!" How can people even think that anything that far-reaching is even possible? They can't even stick a rod through a piece of paper fully, much less construct a conspiracy to that scale! Isn't everyone sick of this already?? I don't get it.
Which is why I wanted to stab my computer screen when I saw this snide remark:
"The drama in [Florida], which has become synonymous with electoral dysfunction, may be in the new and creative ways in which voters might be foiled from casting their ballots."

"Creative ways" and "foiled" all insinuate some proactive, all-consuming organization behind the matter. You know what I say? Shut up, already. I know that's an immature and basically useless remark, but that is exactly how I feel about the people who are bringing it up - so, in that case, I feel it's just as legitimate to respond my way as it is for Katharine Q. Seelye to write about it as such.

Now, there will be some "but what about...?" questions regarding some other points in the article to prove that it is less biased than I am taking it to be. Things like "there is plenty of mystery" and "But the real record was set a century ago, when 66 percent voted in a race that no doubt warms the heart of McCain: 1908 was the year that William Howard Taft, the Republican, defeated the golden-tongued Democrat, William Jennings Bryan". And I will go ahead and preemptively dismiss those, for the former comment is merely an old journalism must-have to ensnare readers doubtful about how interesting this election will be and the latter is more of a underhanded, hidden jab at how McCain's heart is cold and empty.

I know this is going to cause some controversy, mostly because I haven't really ever made clear my political intentions, at least to the majority of my friends. But let me just say that when I think about either candidate today, I can't really see either as the worse or better choice. I wouldn't mind either one. They're both going to have to do the same things to get this country out of the hole it's in right now, (e.g. raise taxes... yes, that's going to happen, and for a heck of a lot more people than everyone originally thought... whoops!) and therefore I couldn't care less.

And thus, I open the proverbial can of worms.