In an otherwise-unremarkable process article about the primary race for the Democratic Senate nomination in Arkansas, Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times drops in this paragraph:
So how would Mr. Halter have voted on health care? When asked in the interview, he said, “You’re not going to like the length of my answer” and talked for four minutes without a specific answer. Asked again, he said, “Yeah, I would have voted for it.”
So how would Mr. Halter have voted on health care? When asked in the interview, he said, “You’re not going to like the length of my answer” and talked for four minutes without a specific answer. Asked again, he said, “Yeah, I would have voted for it.”
A political candidate attempts to give a nuanced answer to a complicated policy question, and this is explained essentially as an attempt to avoid the question. Rather than brush aside Mr. Halter's desire to explain his position fully, Mr. Zeleny focuses on the soundbite.
There's no question that it's interesting to investigate the dynamics of the primary races that are taking place right now, which have very real consequences for the composition of the Congress. But to do so at the expense of elucidating the policy debates that are shaping those races does a disservice to the reader and to the trade of journalism.
— C.
Family Feud Shaping Up in Democratic Senate Race in Arkansas (NYT)
No comments:
Post a Comment