Ok, seriously now.
I think it's about time to start useing the blog for the reason it was created in the first place.
Article source
This article is a pretty standard one...although it did seem a little short: It looked like a few of the near-100 comments had as much to say as the article did. For now I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it was one of them A-presidential-canadate-did-something-lets-write-about-it type articles.
But the other thing that bothered me was the lack of focus in the article. The artile, according to the headline, was supposed to be about how Obama regonized McCain's attempt "to tone down the rhetoric in his town hall meeting." But that only lasted a solid two paragraphs, while the rest of the article is how Obama criticized McCain and a mention of the campaining in PA.
Kinda gives me the feeling of a slight bias favoring Obama. Not that it's totaly unrealistic to excpect unbias news nowadays or anything. Or maybe I'm just seeing things. I dunno.
Article source
This article is a pretty standard one...although it did seem a little short: It looked like a few of the near-100 comments had as much to say as the article did. For now I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it was one of them A-presidential-canadate-did-something-lets-write-about-it type articles.
But the other thing that bothered me was the lack of focus in the article. The artile, according to the headline, was supposed to be about how Obama regonized McCain's attempt "to tone down the rhetoric in his town hall meeting." But that only lasted a solid two paragraphs, while the rest of the article is how Obama criticized McCain and a mention of the campaining in PA.
Kinda gives me the feeling of a slight bias favoring Obama. Not that it's totaly unrealistic to excpect unbias news nowadays or anything. Or maybe I'm just seeing things. I dunno.
Posted by a huge chunk of string beans at dinner last night.
4 Comments:
I agree, I can definitely see the bias in this article it does seem a bit slanted.
Yeah, you can tell that it is biased. However, it is a blog and not an article. Maybe The Times wants the blogs to be slightly biased to provoke conversation. In any case, it's just one reporter's view of the election, it is not that reliable of a source.
Hmmm...so it is a blog. I overlooked that. Thanks for pointing that out Matt, that totaly changes the way I look at what's written.
I find it interesting that the blog is written like an article though. I was under the impression that news would go in the news section, while blogs would be kept strictly for opinions...? (And I mean blunt opinions, where the blogger says "I think this" and "I think that." There was none of that here.)
Maybe any blogs on The Times website have to follow certain guidelines to make it look like an article. I agree- it's very misleading. They should allow reporters to write in a blog-like format, maybe even have a sepreate website for them.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home