Now this is why this New York Post article frustrates me. The New York Post is known for being sensationalist and overly biased, and this post is no different. The author, Michael Goodwin, speaks about how Obama has allegedly "become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government." He criticizes Obama and what he has done in office, which yes, I think is completely okay to do; everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, in my opinion, the way in which he criticizes is completely disrespectful. At one point Goodwin says, "Even as desperate Pander-crats, including the president, continue to baby-talk the Wall Street hooligans, some of whom have violently attacked police, Mayor Bloomberg gets the point and tone just right."
I just found that throughout this post, Goodwin was incredibly biased and disrespectful, and because of this I cannot consider him to be a credible source of information. Although I will admit to leaning more towards the conservative side of the political spectrum, I do consider myself to be much more moderate in general and I appreciate hearing all facts and points of view before taking a stand on an issue. However, reading sensationalist and biased stories such as Goodwin's upset me because I would rather learn the facts about a situation or issue, not about the author's clear disdain for it. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that this can be a very difficult task to undergo when reading about politics, because as fact-based and bias-free I would like things to be, that is just not in the nature of politics.
