IdealogianMy Brain Squished Into A Web Page |
|
January 9, 2004Let the Swooning BeginSeeking Women's Votes, Clark Changes His Style
Swayed yet, women? One interesting feature of the article: it states that "Some Democrats say the problem is that women are put off by the military persona." And yet the Times insists on refering to him, no less than eight times throughout the article, simply as "the general." (I'm not counting when they call him "General Clark" - that's just his title.) A quick perusal of recent articles about Howard Dean and John Kerry turns up no references to them as "the governer" or "the senator," respectively. Granted, his being a general is directly related to the issue, but is it truly unbiased reporting by the Times to repeatedly and gratuitously emphasize his "military persona?" Posted January 9, 2004 9:14 AMComments
I would not be surprised if they called President Eisenhower, General Eisenhower when he ran for the presidency.Maybe it has something to do with giving him the proper respect for the position he held. After all we do not get many Generals running for the highest office.As the position of General is the highest one can attain I believe at one time it may have been a sign of respect and honor. Today, I'm not so sure. Posted by: Bob at January 11, 2004 8:49 PMPost a comment
|
About MeArchives
February 2005
January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 SearchLinksTech Stuff |