I pasted the end of both stories and the link. It is easy to see the difference in the tone of both just from the last two paragraphs of each story. The LA Times version of this same story is significantly more loaded than the Boston Globe one.
“I see no evidence of corruption,’’ Chisam said in response to questions from Democratic lawmakers. Noting that sloppiness is not an excuse for breaking the rules, he described Rangel as “overzealous in many of the things he did.’’
After Rangel’s walkout, his office issued a statement saying he will not resign and will move forward with his legislative work.
"I see no evidence of corruption," Chisam responded, adding: "Do I believe, based on this record, that Congressman Rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in Congress? I do not. I believe that the congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things that he did, and at least sloppy in his personal finances."
"So you're saying, then, sir, that sloppiness is a defense?" asked Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R- Texas) several minutes later.
"I don't believe it's a defense at all," the chief counsel responded. "In fact, I believe that it's a violation of the rules."
"So you're saying, then, sir, that sloppiness is a defense?" asked Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R- Texas) several minutes later.
"I don't believe it's a defense at all," the chief counsel responded. "In fact, I believe that it's a violation of the rules."
I agree that some part of quotes in LA Times could have been paraphrased, specially rhetorical expressions like "Do I believe" and "I do not." It seemed as script of a play rather than journalistic choice of what is worthy to keep as a pithy quote.
ReplyDelete