PressEthic

Has anyone read the piece by Christopher Hitchens in the latest Slate regarding the march on the White House last week?

I have and hooray for him.

I was very near getting on a bus down to that thing last Saturday to report on it for another course, but not everyone could go so the idea was scrapped and so fell from my self-absorbed mind.

But my first thought, as the idea of going was being batted around, was that I was going to have to learn all about the groups putting this thing on before we went. My knowledge of Lefty groups is spotty. Very spotty.

When it was over I read Michael Janofsky's Times report on the march, and while I didn't have Hitchens' knowledge of the Answer Coalition or United for Peace and Justice, I did notice that Janofsky's reporting on who these groups were was a tad light:

"The protests here and elsewhere were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus."

Never mind that it's all he said about them - it's also his 13th paragraph.

You don't have to adopt Hitchens' views of International ANSWER to understand that a solid article on an event like the march includes a larger amount of reporting on the background and agenda of the organizers than Janofsky provided in his stellar 13th paragraph.

After all, the background and agenda of the administration get plenty of play. We know that old cornball front to back by now.

Plus, their website is a fun read.

Slate wins, the Times loses.