Friday, September 03, 2004
Not good reporting in critique articles
Opening his piece in an attempt to sound clever, NYTimes reporter Todd Purdum does a poor job as a reporter: "For a nation divided over his stewardship, distressed about the economy and dubious about the war with Iraq, President Bush had one overriding message last night: He's still the one."
That statement makes Bush sound self-centered, which his speech obviously showed that he isn't. Mr. Purdum, stop trying to be Maureen Dowd. You'll be better off for it.
The WaPo article is better, but they first begin with criticism--but it is a political article. However, it might be better to give a summary of the good and bad in the first paragraph and then elaborate in case people are skimming.
UPDATE: Let's also compare the first two paragraphs of the news articles on the speech. First, the WaPo:
I think one can clearly see that the NYTs article, in comparison to the WaPo article, is much more slanted, since it discusses Bush attacking Kerry as being the center of the speech. The WaPo, on the other hand, notes both the domestic and national security parts of the speech, and notes that national security was at the heart of Bush's message.
I have a possible explanation for the NYTs bias. If you're supporting Kerry, than naturally the parts that are critiquing Kerry will jump out at the reporter. If the major media would understand that their political viewpoints influence their coverage, they might be better at giving more balanced, better coverage. Of course, they can only do that if they want to.
That statement makes Bush sound self-centered, which his speech obviously showed that he isn't. Mr. Purdum, stop trying to be Maureen Dowd. You'll be better off for it.
The WaPo article is better, but they first begin with criticism--but it is a political article. However, it might be better to give a summary of the good and bad in the first paragraph and then elaborate in case people are skimming.
UPDATE: Let's also compare the first two paragraphs of the news articles on the speech. First, the WaPo:
NEW YORK, Sept. 2 -- President George W. Bush accepted the Republican nomination for a second term Thursday night with a lofty speech casting his reelection as crucial to the spread of democracy across the world and to the security of Americans at home.Now the NYTs:
In an address that subordinated domestic policy proposals to the campaign against terrorism, Bush delivered an emotional appeal that he be viewed as the leader best suited to keep the nation safe. The president proposed a simplification of the federal tax code and renewed his call for a revamped Social Security program and a host of smaller initiatives ranging from medical savings accounts to more testing of high-school seniors. But he devoted the bulk of his speech, and his rhetorical flourishes, to the national security message that forms the core of his candidacy.
George W. Bush accepted the Republican nomination to run for a second term as president last night, outlining proposals that he vowed would create new jobs and expand health care and educational opportunities over the next four years, while he battered Senator John Kerry for what Mr. Bush said was a wavering record on national security and the economy.
At the culmination of a four-day convention in New York, Mr. Bush repeatedly and soberly referred to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as he portrayed his first term in the White House as one shaped by that tragedy. Defining his presidency with historic sweep, he suggested that Mr. Kerry would falter in the face of the continuing threat to America.
I think one can clearly see that the NYTs article, in comparison to the WaPo article, is much more slanted, since it discusses Bush attacking Kerry as being the center of the speech. The WaPo, on the other hand, notes both the domestic and national security parts of the speech, and notes that national security was at the heart of Bush's message.
I have a possible explanation for the NYTs bias. If you're supporting Kerry, than naturally the parts that are critiquing Kerry will jump out at the reporter. If the major media would understand that their political viewpoints influence their coverage, they might be better at giving more balanced, better coverage. Of course, they can only do that if they want to.
Comments:
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a Free site Free Article Search. It pretty much covers life science article related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
Post a Comment
I have a Free site Free Article Search. It pretty much covers life science article related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
# posted by 
: 4:08 AM
: 4:08 AM
