Front-page NYTimes piece on how citizens feel about Syria illustrates the difficulties of being objective. Is this passage passing judgment or simply stating the obvious without worrying about how it might be perceived?
Some say they now believe that domestic needs neglected during a decade of war override foreign imperatives. Some, reviewing years of pitched struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq, see the Middle East as quicksand that must be avoided at all costs. Some say that Syria’s civil war is Syria’s problem, and that the United States is not the Mr. Fix-it for all of the world’s crises.
And here, at least, more than a few see military action against Syria as unacceptable simply because it is Mr. Obama’s idea.
Skepticism and Wariness in Talk of Syria Attack – NYTimes.com.
One thought on “Objectivity or honesty on Syria?”
It’s not a scientific poll, obviously, but when a Republican congressman freely admits that most of the “anti” calls he has gotten from constituents have more to do with Obama himself than with the merits of the arguments, then that ain’t The New York Times’s fault.