Was something lost in translation at the border

Last night I took a few minutes the results from the Michigan and Arizona primaries come in.  In both cases Romney received a plurality of the votes, though in Michigan the margin was pretty narrow.

Given recent stumbles by Romney and the fact that Michigan is where Romney grew up many suggested that success there would be particularly important.  So now that he has 'won' in Michigan I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the coverage (mainly through their choice of headlines) and see how they have interpreted a similar set of facts.  In the following cases I looked at the most prominent story in these organization's news sections - it's possible that there is additional coverage with a different take on things in a dedicated election coverage wing of the website/organization.

The New York Times' headline was:

Romney Regains Stride With Victories in 2 States

I think it is fair to say that the tone of their article is summed up in the following passage:

His victory over Mr. Santorum here in Michigan was far from commanding, but it was most likely sufficient to dampen the rising clamor from across the Republican Party about his ability to win over conservatives and connect with voters. The tussle with Mr. Santorum highlighted ample concerns about Mr. Romney, but his win spared his campaign from deep turmoil. 

 NPR's leading primary related headline is:

Santorum and Co. Left to Mourn What Might Have Been In Michigan

 Immediately the focus on the significance of the loss for Santorum rather than the significance for the 'winner,' Romney, is apparent.  This emphasis is particularly clear in the first paragraph:

Rick Santorum and his campaign will likely look back on Michigan's 2012 primary not only as a heartbreaking loss in the battle against Mitt Romney but also as a historic lost opportunity.

USA Today's headline isn't too different in tone from the New York Times:

Romney campaign breathes a sigh of relief after Michigan win

A USA Today 'blog' story on the primaries take a slightly different tack, noting the proportionality of delegate distribution in Michigan:

Romney, Santorum to split Michigan delegates

Fox News seems to hedge their prediction bets with the uninspiring:

Romney wins Michigan, Arizona primaries

The seem to be suggesting that Romney's candidacy is still not out of the woods and that this whole Super Tuesday thing might be the real proving ground.

Mitt Romney, after fending off Rick Santorum in his home state of Michigan, is fast-approaching the biggest test so far of his volatile front-runner status: next week’s Super Tuesday contests where 419 delegates are up for grabs.

There seems to be a strange parallel between the Fox News headline and the headline used by the Washington Post:

Mitt Romney wins Arizona, Michigan primaries

The Washington Post also seems less inclined to suggest that success in these two contests have turned around Romney's campaign.

Romney’s victories on Tuesday are unlikely to solve the larger problems that have held back his campaign. Even after months of work and millions of dollars spent, he has not won over a vast swath of Republicans. 

The most surprising headline that I have yet seen comes from the Globe and Mail.  For some reason they seem to have interpreted last night's events as being bad for Romney:

Narrow win in home state of Michigan clouds Romney's chances

And they don't beat around the bushes with this strongly worded first paragraph.

Mitt Romney’s tortuous path to the Republican presidential nomination took another detour into rocky territory on Tuesday with his thin win in a contest he should by rights have owned. 

Obviously these are just a few of the many thousand headlines that have been written as a result of last night's primary results.  But as you can see, depending on your source, things are either looking great for Romney or things are looking bad for Romney or Santorum.  It's impressive that a single event can lead such widely varying news output.

Cameron: 42
Neil:0