Going out on a high note

Article conclusions in The New York Times often mislead the audience. Two common types of conclusions that do readers a disservice are (1) the happy ending and ( 2) giving an opinion the last word.

First, the happy ending can negate a serious discussion. We saw an example of this yesterday in the article "Deep Recession Sharply Altered U.S. Jobless Map". The article focuses on high unemployment rates in the American South and West. Of course, this discussion omits mention of employment and business trends that preceded the recession--the decline of manufacturing jobs due to off-shoring, for example. Nevertheless, after discussing high unemployment, the article ends with this:

But Mr. Kaglic said that the recent return of manufacturing jobs was giving him hope, and that one reason for the high unemployment rate was that more people were now seeking work.

“I would look at it as our dreams are delayed,” he said, “rather than our dreams being denied.”

This "things are looking up" conclusion wipes out everything preceding it.

The second kind of ending is the conclusion that gives one opinion the last word. Giving an opinion the last word legitimizes that opinion, and that opinion becomes the reader's takeaway. We see an example of this today in the article "Wealthy, Influential, Leaning Republican and Pushing a Christie Bid for President". This piece says that a group of wealthy, elite business and financial leaders are pushing New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie to run for president. The article hints that these elites favor Christie not solely for his charisma, but also for his anti-union stance and record of fiscal conservatism. Of course, that these policies might damage the middle and working classes and the poor goes unstated, and absolutely no voice is given to critics of Mr. Christie. This glowing opinion of the NJ Governor gets the last word:

“I had Christie to our board meeting the April after he took office, and he knocked their socks off,” said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group with a gold-plated roster of prominent Democratic and Republican moneymen. “And ever since, there’s been nothing but enthusiasm for him. He’s considered smart, courageous, a straight talker, kind of an antipolitician.”

So is this what the reader is to conclude about Chris Christie? What about his record? What affect might his policies have on the 99% of people who aren't pushing a Christie bid? What will Christie do for them? Lots of people want Kucinich or some other Progressive to run, but this fact gets no coverage. This Christie article shows without saying that money buys office, our system is corrupt.