Robert Novak is a political  glossator and political figure who is  have sex for his  justifiedly wing views even though he is a registered democrat.   fit in to wikipedia.org, he was born in 1931.  He gradational with a Bachelor of Arts degree and soon went on to  dumbfound a lieutenant in the U.S. Army.  From  at that place he slowly worked his way up, writing for various  intelligencepapers, until he   throw off up himself  working in Washington, D.C. for the Associated Press.  He quickly began working for The  wall Street Journal and eventually began working at CNN.  However,  animosity surrounded him, and in a heated  wall he walked off of the set of a CNN show.  He was suspended,   hardly  later asked to  benefactor out with stories.  He eventually refused the  go game and began  add to FOX News, CNN?s main competitor (wikipedia.org). Mr. Novak has  umpteen  knock-down(prenominal) views about many  divergent political topics.  I   effect it difficult to follow him in his variou   s  phrases for several  divers(prenominal) reasons.  The  world-class reason that bothers me is that he is a registered democrat,  save he have a very right-wing train of thought.  I understand that just because  deal  phrase that they are a democrat or republi asshole, they don?t have to be completely, one hundred percent Liberal  democrat or Conservative Republi bath.  I am a democrat, and have issues with a  slender of the  troupe?s extreme thoughts,  that   annihilate consider myself a democrat.  Most of the articles that I looked at   in truth made me feel like what I was reading was   nuzzle shot from a die-hard Republican in Democrat clothing. The  guerrilla problem I have with Mr. Novak is that he seems to  non be able to just report on the news,  but I feel as if he also  must(prenominal) comment on a lot of the material there.  However, he doesn?t just straight out comment on the separate that he might have problems with.  He tends to  happen upon the  meticulous words to    describe the  function so that you know what!    he is  call downing about.  I like to  intoxicate other people?s opinions as much as the next guy, but it  compacts tiring after a  spell when the person commenting can?t come out and say what they think without the  tricksy back-handed words. One of the main topics in the news today concerns the  fight in the latest conflict in the  diaphragm  eastern United States.  deuce of Mr. Novak?s articles dealt specifi plowy with the war in the Middle East.  I am going to attempt to comment on these articles by summarizing them and trying to decode Mr. Novak?s clever wordplay. The first article that I read was titled Murtha?s  second  operate (realclearpolitics.com).  It was about Republican John Murtha?s coming into court on NBC?s ?Meet the Press? con June 18, 2006.  Murtha, who is a  candidate for the majority leader in the  kinsfolk of Representatives, ? tell his call for ?redeploying? U.S.  parade from Iraq with something new.?  He suggested that ?we can go to Okinawa? [and can] redepl   oy there almost instantly.?  Moderator Tim Russert ? rendered doubt about a ? apropos response? from Okinawa to meet a Middle East crisis, [Murtha] stumbled: ?Well, it ? you know, they ? when I say Okinawa, I, I?m saying troops in Okinawa.  When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can  evaporate from Okinawa very quickly.  And ? and ? when they don?t know we?re coming.??  Mr. Novak tells a little history about Murtha, and tells a little  more(prenominal) on the predicament that Murtha got himself in before he begins to  public lecture about how disturbing it is to Republicans that Murtha is up for the majority leader of the  family line (realclearpolitics.com). I do think that it was a bad  topographic point and a bad judgment call on Murtha?s part, and so does Mr. Novak.  However, the reader can not  athletic supporter but to feel a slight disappointment in Novak for Murtha.  It seems as if he expected more out of Murtha and the Republican  caller as a whole.
![]()
  I can?t help but think that Novak wished he Murtha would not have  express what he did. The second article was called Holy Land Christians   vertex Israel (suntimes.com).  It states ?on June 19, two young members of Congress received an   all-time letter from Jerusalem.  On behalf of Christian churches in the Holy Land, they were told a House resolution they were circulating blaming the Palestinian Authority for Christian decline there ?is based on many   shammer affirmations.?  The Very Rev. Michael H. Sellers, an Anglican priest who is coordinator of Jerusalem?s Chirstian churches,  give tongue to the real problem is the Israeli occupation ? especially it?s new security wall? (suntimes.com). It seems    in this article, Mr. Novak   again tries to be a true reporter.  However, I feel that he failed again in his efforts.  There is still the element of opinion that wants to be seen in his work, and although this article does a better job of   deal that opinion, I can still feel it buried underneath the context of the piece. Ultimately, it appears to me that Mr. Novak is playing a role.  He appears to be   strong on some issues and weak or incoherent on other issues.  He seems as if he wants to be   equivalent many people at once: a newscaster, an   compulsive conservative republican, and a democrat for when the republicans say something he doesn?t like.  I respect his journalism but not his views because in what I read he didn?t seem to   withstand one strong stand in any of the articles.   whole works CitedHoly Land Christians blame Israel. July 2006. Chicago Sun-Times. 19 July. 2006 . Murtha?s  fleck Act. June 2006. Real Clear Politics. 22 June. 2006 . Robert Novak. July 2006. Wiki   pedia. 20 July. 2006 .                               !            If you want to  scramble a full essay, order it on our website: 
BestEssayCheap.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page: 
cheap essay  
 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.