…”if [Michelle Obama is] spreading herself too thin to emerge in the public mind as a leading voice on” her “self-described core messages — about military families, volunteerism, and helping working women balance work and family life,” reports Politico’s Nia-Malika Henderson.
I mean, you were just wondering that, weren’t you?
And also? “[F]or some”
[Mrs.] Obama’s multi-tasking approach to the job raises the specter of Rosalynn Carter, who was dogged early on by questions of whether she was taking on too much and trying to be all things to all people…
which, “[i]ronically,” has “some”
raising the same “too much, too fast?” question about Michelle that they’re raising about her husband, the president.
News organizations should simply ban the attribution of views to "some". In a country as big as America, any viewpoint you can imagine is held by at least some people. This means that "some say . . . " is not just a pointless, insignificant statement, but a dishonest dodge. There's always a more specific reason that a reporter chooses to highlight one particular point of view, and editors should insist that reporters be forthcoming about such reasons. The key to really objective journalism is not neutrality but honesty.
#1 Posted by D. B., CJR on Mon 30 Mar 2009 at 12:57 PM
Well said, D.B. And kudos to Liz for an appropriately snarky post.
#2 Posted by Anthony Salveggi, CJR on Mon 30 Mar 2009 at 02:50 PM
all that needs to be said to all that sits in the lower seats is STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE BUSINESS.[A TRUE MESSAGE IS, WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND]just sit back and take care of your own."God"IS IN CONTROL. "ALL SMILES"
#3 Posted by sandra medley, CJR on Mon 30 Mar 2009 at 05:07 PM