On first check there were no relevant stories, but I found a moment at lunchtime to check again and here was the story I got: Obama lines up another big-name backer.
Where to start?
First, I almost didn't read the article because I thought there had been a mistake. Under the headline is a picture of the republican candidates, and we've already established that at this point I don't want to learn about them. They will not be on my bubble form next month.
Then, there is the lead-in, "Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano plans to announce her support for the Democratic presidential candidate, a move that could erode support among women for Clinton.". There are so many things about this statement that throw me off track, I almost thought I was in the wrong place again. I have never heard of Janet Napolitano, so I wouldn't count her as a "big-name backer". Then this eroding support among women thing...the infinite implications of that statement...well it just pisses me off, so I won't even get started.
But, I pressed on. The first 6 sentences of this article are relevant to the democratic primary and discuss the importance of the big name support. The remaining 9 sentences are concerning the campaign finances of the Republican candidates. Now the picture makes sense. I think someone needs to start teaching newspaper writers/editors/whoever about key points in writing. Maybe they all skipped that day of third grade, but if I recall correctly, the title should be indicative of the content and the content should stay *mostly* on the topic it intended to address. Maybe 6 is more than 9 in that new math.
Final analysis, the news is not a source for actual information. I will now happily return to my blissfully news free existence and bid a fond farewell to this particular experiment.
No comments:
Post a Comment