Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Clinton Impeached

In 1998 President Clinton was impeached over his illicit affair with Monica Lewinsky. Although the public was outraged over Clinton’s moral wrongdoing and lies, many did not feel Clinton’s personal cheating was enough to have him impeached. Others believed he was a liar and not to be trusted and wanted him to be impeached. However, the outcome of the trial was that Clinton was in fact impeached of both articles he was charged with. I examined two articles from varying coasts, New York and San Francisco, to find out what the underlying message of the article was and how it was presented to readers. The first article by The New York Times,
“Impeachment: The President” does a thorough job describing the tone the day Clinton was impeached. The San Francisco Chronicle article “Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” describes how even though Clinton left office with a tarnished reputation, the change he brought to the administration is not forgotten.
“Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” describes the State of The Union address as one that was beyond original, mostly based on the fact that six days previous the Washington Post published an article accusing Clinton of his infamous affair. This article does a really good job of setting the stage for the reader with all of the emotional undertones, for example, “Never before had the nation seen its leader so publicly embattled by such intimate matters.” The article goes on to discuss how scholars will remember the Clinton era as either prosperous or regretful. This article does not discuss the process and depth of the impeachment so much as the aftermath.
“Impeachment: The President” talks more about Clinton’s denial of being impeached, saying he never used the word “impeached” because he didn’t want it to be bound to his name. This article tells how the whole ordeal began, starting with Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation. This article gives more detail about the actual events rather than just focusing on the mood.
Both articles give the reader a lot of information about the event, but they also bring their own ideas. It seemed like in “Clinton Era Marked by Scandal, Prosperity” the author really wanted to make the point to discuss how this whole process would affect the Clinton name. It also used some details that may be deemed unnecessary. “Impeachment: The President” did a really good job of incorporating quotes, but some seemed a little biased on Clinton’s side, maybe using them for reader apathy. However, both articles did a fine job on staying impartial, you couldn’t tell a clear bias from either side. Additionally, both articles offered concrete facts for the reader so that they could make up their own minds on whether Clinton being impeached was a good or bad thing.

1 comment:

  1. This is a very nice post, I like the sort of neutral tone used by AmyG. BIll Clinton was a good president, and I think that is pretty much the public opinion of him now, years after all the monica dust has settled. It's not that the public has forgot about him, no quite the contrary. He now has the reputation of being the president who was busted cheating on his wife and then lying about it, and not the president who was incompetent. Now that we've seen that guy, Clinton dosn't look to bad, and he's always good for a Leno Joke. The P.R. that was generated from the media circus didn't seem to hurt Hillery's career either. I think the media coverage of the whole thing did bring down his presidendcy, and that is muckraking to the extreeme. It's not hard to buy into the theory that maybe Clinton's political enemies had something to do with leaking things to the press also, after all it wouldn't be the first time.