Though I myself have become an Obama convert, I still hold my skepticism on my sleeve. The idea of change is great but I’m waiting to see that change before I start dancing in the street. One fear I’ve had going into an Obama Presidency is the coddling of the press. Though he has yet to take the office, the press appears to already hold an affinity for the President Elect. In Jim Kavanagh’s CNN article White House Job Application Leaves No Stone Unturned shows what journalism without scrutiny can look like. The Obama transistion team has put together a wopping sixty-three point questionnaire to screen their large list of potential appointees. The questions range from applicant’s relationships with Fannie and Freddie to, “Have you had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used – even unfairly – to impugn or attack your character or qualifications for government service?” The questions are extensive but my question is: so what?
Am I supposed to be impressed by a sixty-three question screening process? This is the appointment to a post by the President of the United States. I should sure hope they leave no stone unturned. This article almost congratulates Obama for asking tough questions. I think the largest problem with this article is that it gives no context for the process. What have previous administrations done to screen their appointees? Is this questionnaire more critical than past screening processes? There appears to be no research done in this article other than the coddling of the President Elect.
Works Cited:
White House Job Application Leaves No Stone Unturned
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/weekinreview/05broder.html
No comments:
Post a Comment