Help me understand the part that makes you think NYT is "mad" he dodged the question. From what I read, they simply stated he dodged the question. I watched the interview and he (wisley) dodged the question. Where's the "mad" part?
"Dodged" isn't a neutral word. Why pick on that aspect anyway, like it's something important? Why frame the whole thing as if that was a reasonable question anyway.
I think because they just did a live interview with the President of freakin' Ukraine soon after he took part in one of the biggest diplomatic shit shows in modern history.That interview and what he had to say is very news worthy.
He did 'dodge' the question and saying so implies nothing about the legitimacy of the question. That's just ridiculous. I dodge stupid questions from time to time and they're still stupid questions even if I admit dodging them for diplomatic reasons.
What business is it of the New York Times what happens on Fox? This is treating Fox like a legitimate outlet. That seems strange for a supposedly impartial outlet like the Times.
Comments