Editorial Critique #1

Michael McGough, senior editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, pens a short and sensationalized argument in defense of Adam Schiff’s recent statement regarding President Trump’s phone call with with Ukraine Leader Volodymyr Zelensky entitled: “Adam Schiff’s riff on Trump’s Ukraine call was more truth than parody, but still unwise”. Although the name of the article implies a commentary that includes both favor and criticism of Schiff, once studied, the editorial’s bias is clear. Any worthy point McGough could have made is lost in excess personal attacks and weakened still by an anemic attempt to project impartiality in his concluding critique of Schiff.
Both the author and publisher appear respectable and long-serving. Nonetheless, their propriety is undercut by the bitter nature of this article. From the outset, McGough uses hyperbolic and derogatory descriptors of Trump’s character and behavior. Phrases like “new extremes of crazy” and “deranged” set the tone for the introduction, delivering a clear message of brazen bias. McGough effectively alienates and insults anyone not aligned with his point of view by declaring, “No sentient viewer would think Schiff was presenting his words as what Trump literally said.” Although I agree with the basic argument that defends Schiff’s remarks as a self-evident and lawful summary, I find Mcgough’s propensity for ridicule off-putting. The evidence, as cited in the essay, speaks for itself, and paints a coherent enough picture of Trump’s accusations without the need to resort to insults.
The last paragraph deals with the critique of Schiff’s “unwise” commentary, as promised by the article’s title. While presented as a chastisement of Schiff’s wisdom, suggesting Schiff “watch his words carefully,” it could easily be interpreted as a vessel to launch another shot at Trump. Laced in with the rather flaccid rebuke of Schiff, McGough again manages to characterize Trump negatively. In the last line of the article, along with a warning that Trump will “exploit every opening,” we are left with the claim that Trump is not someone who will watch his own words. A recognizable link to McGough’s previous characterizations of Trump. Whether a reader may agree or not with the sentiment, the editorial’s negative tone demonstrates this piece is more a hit job on Trump rather than an evaluation of Schiff. Additionally, the dichotomy of substance between the headline and body text undermines the essay’s credibility, and indeed, its value. Is this commentary truly a critique of Adam Schiff, as the headline suggests?     
The article comes across as more of a rant than a useful analysis, and for that, it will doubtless appeal to the like-minded and be dismissed by everyone else. The author is entitled to bias, given that this piece is an editorial. However, I question McGough’s goals and motives in delivering such a blatant attack on Trump. Is the intention to inform and persuade or to attempt catharsis? I would hope for the former and advise the author to leave out provocative distractions and divisive suggestion if they wish this country return to reason and productive cooperation.

x

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Values Trump Data

When making policy, on what should we base our decisions: values, or data? We have strong values and traditions that inform our political ideology and direction: laws are made, budgets drawn, and our country’s future set. These belief systems are a fundamental aspect of our culture and can provide a strong sense of identity. Longstanding examples of these values include free speech, voting rights, and the right to bear arms, all enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But what if conclusive evidence discredits our values or proves the methods they inspire to be ineffective? In response, we have two distinct choices: to adhere to tradition regardless, ignoring fact, or to pivot in line with our goals. To pivot is frequently problematic. Beliefs become an integral part of our identity, and in confronting them, we often feel personally challenged. However, if we disregard data when voting, setting budgets, and creating policy, we will fail to realize our objectives. Let’s use sexuality edu
Read more

Beyond Profiteering

An  article  published by  reuters.com  reports on a decision by a U.S. appeals court to continue a case alleging that President Trump has profited from officials who have patronized Trump's businesses. I found most interesting the consideration that beyond profiteering, there is an equally serious concern. As part of the charges brought by the plaintiffs, an accusation made is that officials (both foreign and domestic) may choose to patronize Trump establishments to curry favor.  Although this idea is presented in only one line within the article, it stands out to me as perhaps the most important. Most talking points relating to this subject center around the possibility of President Trump profiteering unconstitutionally. However, we should seriously consider the risk of inappropriate and unfair influence gained by those who support his businesses. President Trump is exceptionally focused on whether or not people like him. This self-concern suggests a possible weakness and a
Read more