The article begins with a hard news lede that gives the
reader a solid foundation, but from then inconsistencies start to come up at
paragraph two. Some of the sources seem muddled here as they are introduced: the
quote “hundreds of potentially classified emails” seems to derive from nowhere
in particular, with three possible identities to attribute the quote to. Does the quote do anything than ponder on the potential
of evidence? The ideas are framed such that they would lead the reader to
believe that Clinton’s accusers are valid and have veracity.
The article runs thin when it comes to transparency, which
at several points defer to anonymous or semi-anonymous sources exchanging
documents with the reporter or being indirectly quoted by the reporter. This
happens on three occasions as the article concludes, using three paragraphs of
paraphrased material from a person or group identified as “State Department officials.”
Although they reflect the ideas of the state department as a general whole, no
source is really given from which the information is derived.
The article also presents the reader with some material that
should be questioned for veracity outright. The reporter said that “at least
one email made public by the State Department contained classified information,”
which is entirely affirmative of Clinton’s supposed guilt. Although the
reporter goes on to detail that the emails were not identified within the memo,
it doesn’t debate or bring any counterpoint. Rather, the reporter seemingly
tries to support the veracity of the statement with “The memos were provided to
The New York Times by a senior government official,” generating another loose
string with little to follow.
The overall tone of the article is accusatory, when the
reader should come off with an impression of inquiry. It doesn’t objectively
reflect the state of the email scandal at this time. Clinton and her side were presented,
however this was done entirely in the form of quotes from the accused.
Logically, people are weary of placing belief in the defendant over the
plaintiff. Objectively, news organizations should do their best to present two
sides of an issue, and this article fails to establish this.
In terms of depth the article fails short because it’s focus
is too honed on accusing Clinton rather than questioning the ramifications of
placing trust in her. A more politically charged article could distract the
reader from the emphasis, Clinton’s guilt, and cause the audience to make up
their minds ahead of time based on their own bias. In reality the article brings
forth resonating ideas to be explored, like the transparency of the nation’s
next president and the meaning of classified information, but it doesn’t really
go on to question these ideas. This works objectively, but it doesn’t reflect
the reality and timing of this article as the next election approaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment