Re: Our Views, “A modest agenda,” of Jan. 20: The first error I noted in this editorial was the authors of the editorial; is this a case of mistaken authority on the topic of politics? I could not obtain any information to prove that they were well versed and had authority to speak to the topic.
Within the first two sentences there is the use of unwarranted assumptions by assuming that if a politician knows their limits, they can be more successful than by performing well in office. The editors provide no back up documentation of their claim to validate their statement; readers would probably prefer to be able see the reasoning to this statement.
There are quite a few instances of oversimplification utilized within the editorial, such as references like doesn’t try to bite off a big chunk of change comparing to Nathan Deal’s legislative agenda and key initiatives, comparing the compiling debt of other states as Mount Everest and passing the buck in reference to letting the state agencies handle health care and tax issues. By utilizing these comparisons, the editor is possibly distorting how the reader takes in the information from the article.
Also, there is overgeneralization and stereotyping being utilized to describe all of the politicians in Washington as “drunken sailors.” By making this statement, the editor is showing a bias towards the politicians within our state but giving no reason to why all other politicians are drunken sailors.
In the last half of the article, the editor speaks about Deal’s proposed initiatives but never cites a source of the information which could in part be a biased consideration of evidence and/or a hasty conclusion. If the editors would have cited their source for the information, readers could verify that this information is true and not just the opinion of the editors. Without this information, it is possible that all of the information was just a hasty conclusion the editors made about Deal’s policies.