New York Times Reading Log - 5

I found the article in today's New York Times by David M. Herszenhorn about Vladimir Putin's re-election in Russia to be interesting.  Although the article didn't have a "bias"per se, it was interesting to me how heavily it was being inferred in the article that the election was rigged.  I understand that Herszenhorn is not technically taking sides with this article, since all of the claims he mentions regarding the election's rigging are well documented by experts and by Russian politicians and citizens.  However, it is interesting how a writer can use evidence and perhaps a slightly slanted tone and really cast a negative pall over an event.

The negative vibes in this article even pervade the image that is on the front page, picturing Putin in front of an ominous looking, deep-red backdrop, pointing emphatically during what looks like a dramatic celebration speech.  I this picture, Putin looks like he just named himself evil emperor of the world or something.  The quotes that Herszenhorn attributes to Putin come across as ironic, especially given the heavy implications that the election was fraudulent.  

"We have gained a clean victory!" said Putin in his speech

This is not to sound as if I believe that Herszenhorn is wrong in his implications that the election was fraudulent.  In fact, I am inclined to totally agree with him.  Besides, it isn't really Herszenhorn making the claims after all, is it?  He simply chooses the angle with which to write it, and uses the evidence that supports it.  I think this article is so well written and  informative because it doesn't back down from speculation.  It just goes to show the persuasive power that journalism can have, even despite the practice's standards for avoiding bias.