Ryan Fischer
The New York Times Article titled “Inquiry Sought in Hillary
Clinton’s Use of Email” starts in with a hard news lede that gives the reader a
solid foundation, but from there 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. The quote
doesn’t 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 as well.
The reporter’s transparency runs thin at several points when
he defers to anonymous or semi-anonymous sources exchanging documents with the
reporters or being indirectly quoted. 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 given from which
the information is derived.
Readers are presented with some material that should be
questioned for veracity outright. The reporters said that “at least one email
made public by the State Department contained classified information,” which is
affirmative of Clinton’s supposed guilt. Although the reporters go on to detail
that the emails were not identified within the memo they do not debate or bring
any counterpoint. Rather, the reporters try 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 present
in the article, however the balance comes entirely in the form of quotes from
the accused. Logically, people are weary of placing belief in the defendant
over the plaintiff.
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 bigger ideas to be explored, like the transparency of the nation’s
next president and the meaning of classified information, but it doesn’t go on
to question these ideas. This works objectively, but it doesn’t reflect the
reality and timing of this article as accurately as it could.
