Talk:John Edwards: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Stephen Ewen No edit summary |
imported>Richard Jensen (media consensus: angry Edwards) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::::Of course Warren and RWK are very, very obviously right. This is nothing other than bias being placed into an article, plain as day. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 22:25, 4 January 2008 (CST) | ::::Of course Warren and RWK are very, very obviously right. This is nothing other than bias being placed into an article, plain as day. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 22:25, 4 January 2008 (CST) | ||
:::::Is it bias for or against Edwards? The major news media arereporting on his tone and rhetoric and there is no reason for CZ to ignore it. For example: | |||
# " Obama's optimistic change message trumped Edwards's angry, populist message." at [http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080104/cm_rcp/winners_losers_from_iowa] | |||
#Wolf Blitzer interviewing Edwards: "Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be making the same point in criticizing you. They suggested yesterday — Hillary Clinton said it’s not something you have to do by yelling and screaming. They are talking about your being supposedly one angry man." | |||
#Rich Lowry (editor National Review): "The Hater: John Edwards, the crusader." "John Edwards is angry, and he wants people to know it." at [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmEwMTI3NGFhZDJhMGM2MWE3ZjMyZTUyMjNjMGEzZWM=] | |||
#Senator Dodd: "I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew." at [http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/40989/] | |||
#Roger Simon: "John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side." at [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5081.html]\ | |||
#''National Ledger'': " So what is he so angry about? His speeches are filled with harsh attacks." at [http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618041.shtml] [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 22:54, 4 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 23:54, 4 January 2008
Name
Is Johnny his real name? Maybe in any case it would be better to begin the article with John Edwards and mention the full name later, as we've done with e.g. Tony Blair. John Stephenson 01:11, 10 November 2007 (CST)
Angry Crusading Style
I agree with the paragraph quoted below and am no fan of Edwards, but it's presented in a biased way, so it should be rephrased.
After leading in polls in Iowa for much of 2007, Edwards switched to an angry crusading style attacking lobbyists and power brokers in Washington, charging, "This corporate greed is killing the middle class, killing American jobs, and it is stealing your children's future."[1]
By January 2008 he was in a close three-way race in Iowa,
Firstly, "angry crusading style" is a rather negative way of phrasing it. Secondly, mentioning those facts in that order implies that Edwards's decline is due to the style shift. That's for historians to decide, not us. --Warren Schudy 21:46, 4 January 2008 (CST)
- Angry crusading style is exactly accurate--it is neither for not against Edwards. The quote reflects the angry ("greed" "killing" "stealing") style (and was repeated by the news media). Many newsmen commented on the switch in style. As for historians, well I'm a historian of campaign techniques. :) see "Armied Admen and Crusaders"
- I'm inclined to agree with Warren on this one; it's not really for us to decide if it was "angry" or not; if it was aggressive then why not say so, but "angry" I'm not so sure is the best word choice. --Robert W King 22:11, 4 January 2008 (CST)
- Angry crusading style is exactly accurate--it is neither for not against Edwards. The quote reflects the angry ("greed" "killing" "stealing") style (and was repeated by the news media). Many newsmen commented on the switch in style. As for historians, well I'm a historian of campaign techniques. :) see "Armied Admen and Crusaders"
- Of course Warren and RWK are very, very obviously right. This is nothing other than bias being placed into an article, plain as day. Stephen Ewen 22:25, 4 January 2008 (CST)
- Is it bias for or against Edwards? The major news media arereporting on his tone and rhetoric and there is no reason for CZ to ignore it. For example:
- Of course Warren and RWK are very, very obviously right. This is nothing other than bias being placed into an article, plain as day. Stephen Ewen 22:25, 4 January 2008 (CST)
- " Obama's optimistic change message trumped Edwards's angry, populist message." at [1]
- Wolf Blitzer interviewing Edwards: "Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be making the same point in criticizing you. They suggested yesterday — Hillary Clinton said it’s not something you have to do by yelling and screaming. They are talking about your being supposedly one angry man."
- Rich Lowry (editor National Review): "The Hater: John Edwards, the crusader." "John Edwards is angry, and he wants people to know it." at [2]
- Senator Dodd: "I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew." at [3]
- Roger Simon: "John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side." at [4]\
- National Ledger: " So what is he so angry about? His speeches are filled with harsh attacks." at [5] Richard Jensen 22:54, 4 January 2008 (CST)