Was Republican Mitt Romney's victory in the Nevada caucuses slighted? After all, Hillary Clinton's win over Barack Obama in Nevada got front-page play, as did John McCain's win in the South Carolina primaries. Yet Romney's overwhelming win in Nevada, where more delegates were at stake than in South Carolina, was glossed over, at least in the Manhattan print edition of the Times. Romney currently leads the delegate count among the Republican candidates.
This full story [1]on the Romney win was apparently left out of all copies of the Manhattan edition of the New York Times. That left only the fifth paragraphof Adam Nagourney's front-page "news analysis [2]," the 13th paragraph of the story [3] on the Obama-Clinton matchup in Nevada, and the 7th paragraph of the front-page story on McCain's win (which dismissed the Nevada contest as "lightly contested").
The Times doesn't seem to care much for Romney. On Saturday, Michael Luo's "Romney Alters His Message, but Questions Remain [4]" had this to say:
"But as has often been the case with Mr. Romney, parts of his change mantra have rung inauthentic to some, engendering fresh accusations of pandering and political misspeak from critics and rivals.
"'There's something about Mitt Romney that makes people disinclined to cut him a lot of slack,' said Dan Schnur, a Republican strategist who is not affiliated with any campaign. 'Every candidate for every office pushes the envelope in their message. You don't win a lot of elections with subtlety, but Romney seems to get called on it more frequently.'
"In South Carolina this week, Mr. Romney trotted out his private-sector background - he began his career in consulting and then earned millions of dollars as a founder of the leveraged buyout firm Bain Capital - as evidence of his economic expertise and commitment to job creation. He did not mention that in some cases his company caused layoffs."