A Telling Omission?
Here is another glowing article -- this time in The NY Times -- about Barack Obama's leadership of the Harvard Law Review.
What's worth noting is that there is a Review member from Barack's year (the one before mine) who spoke to the Times for this piece, and gave a significantly less flattering account of his leadership than the one that appears.
Usually, the Times seems quite willing to publish dissenting views, especially ones that may raise questions about a presidential candidate, and especially when they came from a reputable source (these did).
Wonder why such dissenting views were conveniently omitted this time?
What's worth noting is that there is a Review member from Barack's year (the one before mine) who spoke to the Times for this piece, and gave a significantly less flattering account of his leadership than the one that appears.
Usually, the Times seems quite willing to publish dissenting views, especially ones that may raise questions about a presidential candidate, and especially when they came from a reputable source (these did).
Wonder why such dissenting views were conveniently omitted this time?
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:12 AM
2 Comments:
"Wonder why such dissenting views were conveniently omitted this time?"
Too colorful? Too much black and white?
I didn't think that the article was glowing at all. I thought it was a pretty unfair criticism of Obama. I think the reason that the article omitted opposing viewpoints is because the author, Jodi Kantor, is used to writing stories about leisure, obesity, and fashion.
Post a Comment
<< Home