While overall, the “Analysis” piece cited below has merit, it’s interesting to note the different take on Colin Powell’s response to Putin’s grab for power. The reporters Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright state, “While Bush administration officials, such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, quickly raised questions yesterday about whether Putin’s action will strangle democracy in Russia…,” the Post’s editorial says,
THE BOLDNESS of Vladimir Putin’s assault on Russian democracy in the past few days ought to have been galvanizing to a U.S. president who has made the defense of freedom the rhetorical centerpiece of his foreign policy. Instead, the abrupt announcement by the Russian president that he intended to combat terrorism by abolishing elections for governors, and eliminating local elections for individual members of parliament, has been greeted with confused, contradictory and timid murmurings from the State Department and the White House. Distressed Russian politicians described Mr. Putin’s act as “a constitutional coup d’état” and “a step toward dictatorship.” Yet not until yesterday did Secretary of State Colin L. Powell speak out, and then only to understate the obvious (emphasis added): Russia, he observed, “is pulling back on some of the democratic reforms.”
Which is it: quick or a day late and a dollar short?
The characterization is an example of editorializing in articles. The characterization of Powell’s response is editorializing, whether it’s in an editorial or an article. And I’m not sure you can avoid it, but please members of the press, don’t deny it.