I mean, I guess I didn't want the whole story anyway.

Media Critique

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/us/politics/obama-makes-impassioned-defense-of-health-law.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

It’s safe to say the writer of this article, Peter Baker completely blew the yardstick Fairness and the principle Independence out the water.

The article was about President Obama's response to the Republicans threatening to cut off the budget for Obamacare. But if you were reading this article you probably wouldn't really know that. Baker failed to give the whole story of this situation. He gave barely any background knowledge of it and he left you just to his interpretation of Obama's speech.

Baker’s rare use of full quotations of the President and only using bits and pieces of quotes added in with his very misleading diction led you to believe the whole time Obama was speaking he was insulting Republicans and that he was disgruntled.

For example Baker said “Mr. Obama, his voice laced with scorn, ridiculed Republicans for threatening to shut down the government or refusing to increase the debt ceiling to undercut the health care program, saying they had “put up every conceivable roadblock” and were “poisoning Obamacare” so they could then “claim it’s sick.” He cited some of their more flamboyant quotes in an attempt to portray them as extremists, including one racially charged comment. “.

Describing Obama’s voice as “laced with scorn” is a personal opinion. What could have been laced as scorn to one person, could be serious and concern to another. It wasn’t Baker’s place to describe Obama’s voice, it was his job to give you the story and possibly Obama’s full quote and to tell facts and facts only. Also saying that Obama "attempted to portray them as extremists" is another opinion. Obama never once said the Republicans were extremists, he told his opinion about them and if that led you to believe that he was hinting towards them being extremists you yourself must think they're extremist.

Baker also said: “Mr. Obama also singled out sponsors of a “cynical ad campaign” discouraging Americans from signing up for the new health care program by arguing that it would effectively put the government into the room when women undergo gynecological exams and men undergo colonoscopies.”.

Saying Obama “singled out” the sponsors gives you a very negative connotation. In modern terms it would make you think Obama “snitched” or “called out” the sponsors. But once again some people could describe it as “singled out” and to others it could be “pointed out” which would have a less negative connotation to it.

Also throughout the piece Baker took it into his power to interpret President Obama’s speech.

Baker said: ““These are billionaires several times over,” Mr. Obama said, evidently referring to the conservative political activists Charles and David Koch, without naming them.”

Now unless Baker tapped into Obama’s head is he really in the power to tell you who Obama was talking about? It is possible Obama was referring to the conservative activists Baker was talking about but if it wasn’t clearly said then it’s not a fact, it’s an inference.

But one thing Baker did make sure to do was cover Representative William O’Brien’s side of the story when he made a controversial statement comparing Obamacare to the Fugitive Slave Act. When Baker was confronted over his very racist statement, Baker added in O’Brien’s statement trying to justify his use for that comparison.

Even though Baker didn’t give false facts, he also didn’t give the whole truth either. He gave you the truth and worded it in a way to make you lean to one side. If Baker would’ve just given more background information to what the Republicans did or since he gave the opinions of other Republicans, gave some opinions of democrats this could have been a very informing article.

It’s very clear that Baker did a very one-sided job on this article and this is not a reliable source when trying to understand the whole story, but this would definitely attract Republicans.