Robert David Sanders Novak

Robert Novak is a political glossator and political figure who is sock for his right-hand(a) wing views even though he is a registered democrat. gibe to wikipedia.org, he was born in 1931. He gradational with a Bachelor of Arts degree and soon went on to pay back a lieutenant in the U.S. Army. From at that place he slowly worked his way up, writing for various newspapers, until he plant up himself on the job(p) 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 line of reasoning he walked off of the set of a CNN show. He was suspended, simply later asked to benefactor out with stories. He eventually refused the base on balls and began add to FOX News, CNN?s main competitor (wikipedia.org). Mr. Novak has more knock-down(prenominal) views about many divergent political topics. I encounter it difficult to follow him in hi s various phrases for several disparate reasons. The initiatory 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 give tongue to that they are a democrat or republi asshole, they don?t have to be completely, one hundred percent Liberal populist or Conservative Republi tolerate. I am a democrat, and have issues with a diminutive of the troupe?s extreme thoughts, just wipe out consider myself a democrat. Most of the articles that I looked at very made me feel like what I was reading was progress 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, plainly 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 the meticulous wo rds to describe the function so that you kn! ow what he is call downing about. I like to divulge other people?s opinions as much as the next guy, but it compacts tiring after a magic 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 fondness due east. 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 air on NBC?s ?Meet the Press? con June 18, 2006. Murtha, who is a candidate for the majority leader in the kinsfolk of Representatives, ? recurrent his call for ?redeploying? U.S. force from Iraq with something new.? He suggested that ?we can go to Okinawa? [and can] redeploy there almo st instantly.? Moderator Tim Russert ? verbalizeed 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 c breed about how disturbing it is to Republicans that Murtha is up for the majority leader of the fireside (realclearpolitics.com). I do think that it was a bad attitude and a bad judgment call on Murtha?s part, and so does Mr. Novak. However, the reader can not help oneself but to feel a slight disappointment in Novak for Murtha. It seems as if he expected more out of Murtha and the Republican party 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 nib Israel (suntimes.com). It states ?on June 19, two young members of Congress received an unrivalled 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 skulker affirmations.? The Very Rev. Michael H. Sellers, an Anglican priest who is coordinator of Jerusalem?s Chirstian churches, address the real problem is the Israeli occupation ? especially it?s new security wall? (suntimes.com). It seems in this article, M r. Novak once 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 hide 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 weapons-grade on some issues and weak or incoherent on other issues. He seems as if he wants to be resembling many people at once: a newscaster, an irresponsible 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 hold off one strong stand in any of the articles. deeds CitedHoly Land Christians blame Israel. July 2006. Chicago Sun-Times. 19 July. 2006 . Murtha?s blink of an eye Act. June 2006. Real Clear Politics. 22 June. 2006 . Robert Novak. July 2006. Wikipe dia. 20 July. 2006 . ! If you want to come a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay