Article Critique 10/27

The following is a critique of the New York Times article entitled "Watchdog of C.I.A is subject of C.I.A inquiry" from October 11th.
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/washington/12intel.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26refQ3Dtodayspaper&OP=2af68787Q2FQ5CuQ26cQ5CQ5BiNQ510iiQ5E5Q5C522DQ5Cb2Q5CbbQ5CuQ20Q51Q7E49OQ5Ei9Q5Cb549Q5EQ26GhQ7EQ5EdG

The first half of the article explains how Director Hayden’s investigation of Inspector General Helgerson can be viewed as counter-productive and outrageous. The second half of the article establishes why officials at the C.I.A are dissatisfied with the actions of Inspector General Helgerson. On the surface, this piece seems to provide an unbiased and evenly-balanced report of a conflict within the C.I.A between its Director and its Inspector General. But through a subtle orchestration of quotes and facts, the writer of this article conveys a sense of dissatisfaction and alarm over the actions of the Director of the C.I.A. These are my reasons:

1) The first indication of this subtle criticism is that while the title of the piece portrays the Inspector General as being the focus of the article, the actual name of the Inspector General isn’t mentioned until the third paragraph. The Director, however, is mentioned in the first paragraph. I understand that ledes and opening paragraphs are meant to convey as much important information to the reader as possible with the shortest amount of words- so I find that this article’s focus to be on the Director of the C.I.A, and not the Inspector General. This emphasis encourages the reader to question the actions of the Director.

2) Right before the article provides possible reasons for dissatisfaction with the Inspector General, there’s mention of the alternative and arguably preferable methods of complaint. This order of paragraphs leads to a skepticism towards critics of the Inspector General- while there’s an established disgruntlement towards the official, there’s no sense of justification for the investigation. In essence, the writer’s lack of evidence in support of the investigation itself, compared to the in-depth analysis provided by the first paragraph, subtly leans the report against the actions of the Director.

3) I find that the quotes of the first section are more powerful and well-worded than the quotes from the second section, which lends credence to the argument against the investigation. What’s more, the only ‘backed’ sources in this article are found in the first section- which lends more credence to their argument.

4) A paragraph found on the first page describes the firing of Mary O. McCarthy and the work of Mr. Helgerson in the investigation of officials. While no direct link between the two incidents is drawn, their inclusion in the same paragraph creates a sense of underhandedness on the part of the Director of the C.I.A.

5) The only concrete quote that ‘supports’ actions of the C.I.A Director is from John A. Rizzo, which states that “Director Hayden has done a lot of things to convince the operators that he’s looking out for them, and putting the I.G. back in its place is part of this.” But I find that this quote to be a subtle criticism of the Director- the wording ‘to convince’ could be interpreted as an attempt to fool others, or to convey a message that isn’t true. The choice of wording creates a sense of ambiguity that leans towards criticism.

In sum, this article criticizes the actions of the Director of the C.I.A without the use of an explicit confrontation or imposition of beliefs. This is conveyed especially well in the last paragraph, which describes the purpose of Inspector General as being ‘independent,’ after conveying the CIA’s desire to keep the situation contained within itself- thereby creating a sense of contradiction and highlighting a sense of skepticism towards the C.I.A.