This article from The
Washington Post’s editorial section I found intriguing. Considering the Post
generally leans to the left and has endorsed Obama in the past two elections,
it caught my attention that they were not just agreeing with Obama on the issue,
just because they disagree with Putin. They did a sufficient job giving details
to why they believe each president was lacking.They were adequate
at trying to give relevant information in a space meant for small doses of
information due to the lack of attention span. They hit some keynotes from the
meeting Putin and Obama attended regarding the Syrian invasion. Suggesting that the Putin
plan, even though it was not a favorable one by any means, was better than no plan at all.
If the Post was trying to
make an underlining statement and hold Obama’s “feet to the fire”, as John Stewart
calls it, they denounce his lack of a plan and recall the back stepping he did
with the chemical weapons. It is apparent they do not agree with the course of
action Putin wants to take but they do give him credit for having a plan and
putting it into action.
I do believe this article
was suppose to make us think a bit more inquisitively about the fundamental
question, is a not having a plan just as bad as having a well, bad plan.
I also think that most
online websites use captivating images and catchy tag lines to draw our
attention, even if the article is less than stellar, they still get credit for
your click.
No comments:
Post a Comment