admonished Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for hedging on his promise to accept public funding if he wins his party's nomination.Accepting matching funds is a two-edged sword; government money comes with strings attached, including limits on how much one can spend on a campaign. Contributions to Senator Obama are likely to greatly exceed those he would receive in Federal matching funds and those that would be donated to Senator McCain. Senator Obama will probably have an advantage if he turned down Federal funds.
But the point of my mentioning this is not politicians and their tactical moves. Near the bottom of the AP story is this sentence: “As Obama has gained the momentum, he has drawn a greater proportion of McCain's wrath [emphasis added]”. Where did “wrath” come from? That’s an over-the-top description of one politician criticizing another.
If the AP reporter (Libby Quaid) wants to inject Democratic talking points about Senator McCain’s emotional state, do it in the editorial section. (I would feel the same way if a news story referred to Barack Hussein Obama, which has at least the virtue of being factually true although the repeated use of his middle name would be editorializing nonetheless.)
What’s happened to the Associated Press and professional news reporting? It’s enough to make me angry. © 2008 Stephen Yuen
No comments:
Post a Comment