Cheney Warns Pakistan to Act Against Terrorists
The lede starts with a visual protest of a disgruntled Pakistani government against a "dictation" by Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a great summary of the main point of the article, and is later revisited in the article.
The next paragraph explains in efficient detail on why this story is written, and why it becomes interesting to those interested in the world's government affairs. Most people reading this are interested in this genre of news based on the title, which suggests international politics.
Immediately following that paragraph, the story unfolds and more intricate details of the Vice President's visit.
First, it catches the reader's attention by intriguing the curiosity to government secrets, and also why the New York Times was one of the few that knew about his transportation to Afghanistan (which isn't answered).
Then, it explains the reason for other international readers to read the article: The decline in aid for the Pakistani role in the War on Terror.
Finally, the article ends without much of a conclusion. It briefly re-visited the protest by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, but it then re-develops an off-topic detailing of the "secrecy" of the Vice President's travel to Pakistan, compared to other past Presidential examples of similar security circumstances.
But why re-visit the "secrecy"? Probably because the readers of ths article truly want to know about government secrets, to satisfy their hunger for conspiracy and again tabloid-like fingerpointing at President Bush and President Clinton (Clinton was probably added to that conspiracy-hungered paragraph to disqualify this article as an anti-Bush-administration bias story).
Call me crazy, but the end of the news story imploded when the writer had to add in an irrelevant conclusion (because it has nothing to do with title or introduction), just to satisfy anti-Bush administration conspiracy-theorists.
This is a great example of how the New Yorks Times editors in the hierarchy of the business are radically anti-Bush administration, because I believe that the little added snippet was edited and inserted into the article after the original writer passed in the draft... And a sloppy job at that, in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So your beef is with the New York Times and the style of their writing. Well after reading this article I can understand where you are coming from. The author of this article doesn't seem to really make sense. He has a tendency to junp around a bit. I think that it is rather funny that you react this way towards the New York Times. They should really understand what they are talking about due to the fact that New York is on the spot light pretty much everyday and thier news paper is read by millions all over the world.
Well I agree with Lorenna, about trusting the New York Times. I guess we all just feel like blaming some form of the media leaning towards the left or the right. If you feel that strongly about it, then by all means, keep pumping out your political theories. The New York Times however is not going anywhere, and remains one of the most prestigious news sources available.
Post a Comment