Ahead of the third democratic debate, New York Times’ Matt Stevens reports on the Yang2020 campaign, giving commentary on a major ideological goal, a fair breakdown of his policy proposals and reflects on Mr. Yang’s finances based off an interview conducted with the candidate.
The beginning of the article is a bit misleading though. Mainly the problem is the title. You’d expect a report entitled with an essential crux of his campaign would warrant a discussion about what Mr Yang means about, “Make America Think Harder,” why he feels that Americans must start critically evaluating themselves and their politics and how he is the candidate to initiate this. But the piece comes off as a narration of his campaign, devoting almost no space to evaluate the merit of his proposal.
I will say that based off the articles written about Mr. Yang, most tend to meld into bio piece about an underdog candidate instead of any substantive discussion on policy. Though that is a compelling and not a misleading story, it would be great if news outlets would begin to critically analyze his policy proposals.
That being said, we’ll analyze this article with the assumption that it is an examination of his run for presidency instead of his desire to “Make America Think Harder.”
Mr. Stevens begins with a narration of his campaign journey, narrating his rise and exams the underlying causes. He claims My Yang is still one of the lesser known candidates. This is true in a certain fashion, but his source makes his claim look misleading. While he polls in 6th place, this graphic has him located at the bottom of the pact; after several candidates that didn’t qualify for the third night of debates. While this isn’t overt misleading, it does seem to continue the narrative that the media isn’t treating the Yang202 campaign as equitably as it ought to.
However, Mr. Stevens provides astute observations of the source of Yang’s popularity and doesn’t tie his online supporters with notorious hate groups like the Vox Article we examined last week. Especially by highlighting his appeal to groups outside of traditional democratic voting blocks, like libertarians and disaffected Trump voters.
His coverage of Mr. Yang’s finances, both personal and apart of the campaign, were also an apt addition to his article.
Mr. Stevens reported on an array of potentially negative factoids surrounding the Yang campaign, including topics surrounding his personal wealth and finance mismanagement.
While his commentary surrounding Mr. Yang’s personal wealth seemed to be more of an off hand comment rather than something substantive potential supporters would need to be cautious of, he gives a fair and substantive analysis of the campaign contributors and the issue surrounding his paid speeches.
He began discussing the demographics of the #YangGang. He took aim at a popular Yang slogan about his donating a small sum to the campaign. While the number is still low, especially compared to the field, corrected against individuals who donated multiple time, the average is higher than what Yang leads his supporters believe.
So how does this article stand up against objective objectivity from the news? While his title could reflect the content of the article better, Mr. Stevens gives fair testimony to the Yang campaign and holds their feet to the fire when needed. If I was his professor at his Alma Mater, UCLA, I’d give him a A- and a refresher on focusing his title.
