It opens with this lead:
Police arrested more than 30 people who blocked entrances at the Internal Revenue Service building Wednesday morning, part of a day of protests to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Instead of that actual issue at hand:
The Iraq war has been going on for FIVE years. Five. 1826 days.
And another thing. The article was from Associated Press. What, New York Times, you can't get one of your own reporters to cover the anti-war protests?
But the part of the article that bothered me the most was this:
The Iraq war has been unpopular both abroad and in the United States, although an Associated Press-Ipsos poll in December showed that growing numbers think the U.S. is making progress and will eventually be able to claim some success in Iraq.
The findings, a rarity in the unpopular war, came amid diminishing U.S. and Iraqi casualties and the start of modest troop withdrawals. Still, majorities remain upset about the conflict and convinced the invasion was a mistake, and the issue still splits the country deeply along party lines.
Huh. The language is too vague here. Phrases like "growing numbers" and "diminishing U.S. and Iraqi casualties" don't mean anything without NUMBERS. Give proof. Why even put that paragraph in there?
Especially if you're citing a poll that your organization conducted. Come on.
Another thing bothered me. There was another article on the homepage of the Times about Bush's speech today defending the war. That alone bothers me. But anyway, I wanted to point out this paragraph, which belittles the anti-war protests today. Pay attention to the adjectives.
Mr. Bush gave his speech as sporadic and relative small protests erupted in several places here in Washington, and in other cities.
And was that supposed to say relatively small?
No comments:
Post a Comment