President Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria
It was recently discovered that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on its civilians killing thousands of innocent people, hundreds of which were young boys and girls. In response to their use of the universally banned chemical weapons, President Obama would like a U.S. military strike on Syria. But, the President has decided to seek Congressional approval for the strike.
It is good to know that we have a President who would like to make decision after he can see multiple opinions on the subject. But from reading this article, it was clear that the writers and a few Congressional members were not in support of President Obama's military strike in Syria. For example, throughout the article he is only referenced as President Obama once. This may seem unimportant, but he is the President of the United States, and should on average be referenced as President Obama. It is almost as if the New York Times is still in denial of our President's being elected. With such feelings towards the President, you can see that the article was purposefully written to create a subliminal disapproval of President Obama's strike on Syria. After reading If there are any quotes from people supporting the President's plan, I don't remember them, but I do remember the countless references of those in opposition to the plan. Read the article and tell me what you think; if you were completely neutral to the strike, after reading the article would you be more likely to support or disapprove the strike?
For the complete article, visit: President Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria
To hear the President Speak on Syria, watch the video at the top.
The article is written to be a persuasive argument which can commonly just be as frustrating when no bias is presented. I do like what you had to say about the formal usage of President Obama and how the lack of usage was a sign of disrespect and intended to be demeaning in it's context.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that this article has a clear negative bias towards President Obama's decisions. They repeatedly sourced arguments against his decisions, and even the first sentence, which describes him as having "abruptly changed course," suggests that President Obama has a volatile nature or is unreliable in someway. I find articles such as this extremely frustrating, because I feel that I am being denied the chance to view actual information and then form my own opinions. I often turn to international news sources to find a less biased approach to the news, however, I still have trouble finding pure facts.
ReplyDelete