By: Lara van Zyl
Newspapers, either in print or online, are currently reporting on the controversy surrounding President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. News24 reported on former Nobel winner Jimmy Carter’s support for Obama. The New York Times focuses on the mixture of praise and doubt that Obama has received http://http//www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=the%20nobel%20peace%20prize&st=cse. It is well researched, written and structured, mentioning that Obama was chosen as the recipient for this prestigious award for, “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”, this praise comes from the Noble committee for “creating a new climate in international politics” http://http//www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/d0dfe411ff374692b9807448a439e288/09-10-2009-09-31/Nobel_violence_prize_for_Obama. Obama has yet to accomplish great things. Forgive me, but the Nobel should be awarded to someone based on what they have achieved as opposed to what they have yet to achieve. The New York Times does not appear to be subjective, on the contrary, it is written in an objective manner – exploring the situation from different angles. The validity of the decision appears to be the primary source of the controversy. News24 http://http//www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/3f6c440b23b6407fbf4a0f24d203cb2a/15-10-2009-09-10/Carter_Obamas_Nobel_a_mix is less informative and only states that former President Jimmy Carter supports Obama because of the, “aggressive agenda that he is still working to fulfil”. The New Yorks Times reported the facts and sufficient information to their readers to enable them to decide whether Obama should or should not be praised. On a final note: what happens if Obama is unable to fulfil his aggressive agenda, would it not be an affirmation of what many critics are saying now?
No comments:
Post a Comment