Nicholas' response to recent politics!

Nicholas Savasta
Blog Entry #1

In trying to find the “perfect” articles to compare and contrast, I thought it would better to compare different coverage of the presidential election of the two different nominees from the Republican and Democratic parties. As I looked to find the best articles to use I found one titled, “In a Time of Crisis, Is Obama too Cool?” from the New York Times. The other, highlighting some of John McCain’s latest ongoings is titled, “McCain the Show Horse: Way Off Track” from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Even from the start, I knew one article would be more ethical than the other. Even though it didn’t make it easier to complete the assignment, I found it interesting just highlighted in the titles that the ethics in one article were more apparent than in the other.

In the first article titled, “In a Time of Crisis, Is Obama Too Cool?” it outlines recent events involving the economy and the way Obama has handled these events. It goes on to give examples of how he acts, his stance on a couple of things, and what he should do next. In general, this article is not too critical. It states well known facts about Obama and his past voting records (like the vote on the war). At the end of the article the other goes on to state the exact purpose of this article: “His way of approaching things may not work for everyone who’s angry nowadays, but I sense some anger just below the surface,” Ms. Younce said. “Though if things keep getting worse, he may need to turn it up a little, to show passion some more.” Basically, with this ending, the author answered the question posed within the title, “In a Time of Crisis, Is Obama Too Cool?” and leaves it at that. Posing a recommendation for Obama is much better than assuming something and making a statement (opinion) about him. The second article chosen is not as fair.

The second article titled, “McCain the Show Horse: Way Off Track” starts with a statement not a question imposing the author’s view immediately upon the reader from the beginning. Even though the author uses a slick metaphor it is highly opinionated and not as open ended as the first article. It goes on to explain (once again, like the first article) current affairs and a politician’s (John McCain) response to these events. Towards the end, after summing up McCain’s recent actions of “suspending” his campaign because of economic worries and the economic condition of the country it ends with some advice for John McCain! “At the climactic moment, a senior Conservative, Leopold Amery, faced Chamberlain and spoke withering words to his friend of 40 years: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" Not a bad message, not only for the failed George Bush but also for the rudderless John McCain.” The use of this quote is misleading and uses the word “rudderless” to sharpen the blow.

Overall, as I have pointed out with the two examples above and within the titles of each article, the first one involves a question not a statement. In doing this, the article about Obama is more open ended and “nurturing” towards its readers. It presents facts, questions, and a recommendation for Obama. It doesn’t make a broad statement in its title and does not end with a “low blow” quote from one of his friends. As for the second article (and I never care to point it out really) there are less ethics in the way that it is written. Even with the beginning title/ statement this article almost goes too far. The author is pushing his opinion and a quote from an entirely irrelevant event upon the reader. In doing this, the article doesn’t nurture democracy or the reader’s own opinion, it is one sided and is borderline unethical.