Daily should strive for balance in its jobs coverage
To the Daily:
I have been keeping an eye on your recent stories about the upswing in the job market, as I search out a start to my career. However, I was ashamed to read your article in yesterday’s paper (Jobs for graduates increasing, 01/20/2005). The article was very factual and likeable positive throughout — that is, until the last few paragraphs.
The bulk of the article is composed of data from employer surveys and reactions from various personnel within the career guidance organization. Then the author turns to a few choice words from one student. Having landed five job offers after two months of searching, this individual offers advice like: “As long as you’re really aggressive, the job market works in your advantage,” and “The biggest thing is to think outside the box.” These sound like canned phrases clipped straight from those blindly optimistic career magazines. Is this person supposed to represent the typical job-seeking student in the first place?
The interviewed student continues with the following proclamation: “There are a lot of jobs out there. It’s your fault if you haven’t found one yet.” It would be fine with me if I could read the news without baseless condescension. This individual clearly has no grasp of the finer details of matching position with applicant, much less respect for the modern reality of the politics of hiring.
I encourage the Daily to look for multiple student perspectives as a complement to the facts of the issue, and to pay more attention to the intended message in such articles.
Bush’s cabinet appointments have more qualities than loyalty
To the Daily:
I could not disagree more with your editorial regarding President Bush’s choices for his cabinet (His loyal servants, 01/19/2005). First off, Alberto Gonzales is a wonderful choice for attorney general. I find it incredibly disrespectful you could even imply he condoned the barbaric acts committed in the Abu Ghirab prison. If you were to ever read the actual memo I am sure you are referring to, you would know he not only never condoned the treatment that occurred in isolated incidents at the prison, but instead merely narrowly defined what was legally permissible.
In the case of Condoleezza Rice, I am unable to think of a better choice for secretary of state. You make the point that because she is such a close advisor and friend of Bush’s, she would just be a yes man. However I would argue this would not be a bad thing.
When an advisor who normally agrees with the president disagrees with him, the president is more apt to take notice. I believe this will be the case with Rice. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Rice has one of the most impressive resum