The Economist wrote this article shortly after the denial of sexual relations by Clinton, so they focused on the ongoing investigation. The article begins by stating “Kenneth Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel, is to consider whether President Bill Clinton encouraged a former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, to lie under oath about an alleged affair with him” (Et Tu Monica 1). This assertion seems factual, but no source is cited when “is to consider” is used in the sentence. Who is forcing Starr to consider? Throughout the rest of the article, a factual background of the denial by Clinton is presented. In turn, the only flawed facet of the article is the lack of citation. On a political landscape, the normally right leaning outlet, restrains from any partisan favoritism or any anti-Democratic rhetoric. All in all, cited evidence would have completed an already factual piece.
Climax of Issue - (“Chipping towards the Truth.” …show more content…
1999, www.economist.com/node/198835.): Just as the attempted impeachment of the president came to a close, the Economist released the article Bill of Wrongs. It begins by stating that “The president's escape from conviction in his Senate trial was, for sure, a close-run thing” (Bill of Wrongs 1). It is clear that The Economist wants to ensure to its readers that the attempted impeachment could have gone either way. In the previous paragraph, it also stated that “On April 12th a jury in Arkansas flung rotten fruit at Ken Starr, the independent prosecutor who pursued President Clinton, by refusing to convict one of Mr Clinton's sympathisers” (Bill of Wrongs 1). Again, the article includes anti-Clinton rhetoric in the form of degrading tone and demonizing his supporters. Bias, is again, apparent in this piece. It seems to serve the purpose of exciting the base in convicting Clinton. Unfortunately, this political bias results in a lack of
Climax of Issue - (“Chipping towards the Truth.” …show more content…
1999, www.economist.com/node/198835.): Just as the attempted impeachment of the president came to a close, the Economist released the article Bill of Wrongs. It begins by stating that “The president's escape from conviction in his Senate trial was, for sure, a close-run thing” (Bill of Wrongs 1). It is clear that The Economist wants to ensure to its readers that the attempted impeachment could have gone either way. In the previous paragraph, it also stated that “On April 12th a jury in Arkansas flung rotten fruit at Ken Starr, the independent prosecutor who pursued President Clinton, by refusing to convict one of Mr Clinton's sympathisers” (Bill of Wrongs 1). Again, the article includes anti-Clinton rhetoric in the form of degrading tone and demonizing his supporters. Bias, is again, apparent in this piece. It seems to serve the purpose of exciting the base in convicting Clinton. Unfortunately, this political bias results in a lack of