From March 2nd.
This article is about the 'race issue' that is surrounding Sen. Burris' appointment to the Senate. Apparently Dick Durbin has advised Burris to step down because the initial decision to seat Burris was influenced by racial considerations. When Blagojevich made the announcement of his selection of Burris, Sen. Durban pounts out that Rep. Bobby Rush, used "racially charged language to defent the appointment" ( a direct quote from the article, not Durban himself).
However, this is the only mention of any 'race issue'. There isn't any quotes of what was actually said or Burris' actual reaction. The next part of the article explains that Sen. Burris is under some scrutiny for his fund-raising for Blagojevich while "lobbying the governer's inner circle" for the newly opened seat.
Following this is Durbin's proclamation to continue working with the Senator, no matter what is being said about him. While this is an interesting enough quote, I feel as though this could be failed with more relevant information. The title is "Durbin details race issue", yet there is only one vague mention of what the race issue actually is.
Next, the writers go into Burris' church visits, where his fellow church goers prayed for him and his future and where Burris spoke of his contributions while in the Senate. Is this relevant? I felt like the article was really losing it's focus here. I still don't really know what the race issue is.
The article closes with a partial and complete quote of Rush, where he implies that the whole issue was blown out of proportion and that there are more important things to focus on.
I am now at the end of the article and I have no idea why this article was titled the way it was. Content-wise, they had great sources, but the content of the article did not match to the title. Which leads me to wonder...
Is there really an issue that demands 2/3rds of a page in the Monday edition, or is it simply because the issue is tied to race? Could this just be a way to pull in readers, hoping for some inequality of scandal to erupt? That's the feeling I'm getting.
When the writers go into the church scene, they say "...friends who offered prayers for him as he faces adversity in the weeks ahead." Direct quote from the article, but not attributed to anyone. Perhaps it is just me, but the word adversity was, and is, often the word chosen when describing the civil rights movement and things related to that in nature. The fact that these writers specifically chose that word rubs me the wrong way. Had it been in a quote, then ok. But otherwise...eh...again, maybe that's just me.
Overall thoughts: Not very newsworthy, perhaps pulling something out of nothing, and a little writer infuence (word choice?).