His latest, With bitter pills, Obama gets his health vote, is typical of his articles in the Globe. While it’s a good thing to have editorial columns criticizing Obama (and all other politicians, left and right), to see it in articles is another thing. If you read this, and his other columns, you will see how Yakabuski sees Obama and his situation in a very negative light. The overall column is more balanced. For example, this is true:
That is a singular achievement and the second in as many days for the President, who also extracted a commitment from developing countries to join the fight against global warming. But in both so-called successes, Mr. Obama acted as a broker of deals rather than a principled idealist. As such, he risks alienating his most fervent supporters.
Sounds pretty positive, yes? There’s lots more, too. And that’s what makes them odd: the articles themselves are balanced and well written, but there is almost an attempt to make them more negative then they are or need to be.
For example, on this article that I referenced, it is true that there is a strong negative reaction to this. But there’s also columns by such notable people like Paul Krugman and over at TPM media that balance that out. That’s the bigger picture, and from the Globe and it’s writers, I would like the bigger picture. If I want smaller more partisan pictures, there’s lots of blogs and other places for that.
There’s alot of good coverage in Yakabuski’s articles. But his negativity is odd, to say the least.
P.S. Thanks for reading this. If you have found it useful and you’d like to say thanks by buying me a coffee, you can do so here. Thanks! That’s awesome!