Beat Sweetener: The Rajiv Shah Edition

[Waiting For Everyman]

The Washington Post drools all over the new USAID chief.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Friday, Jan. 15, 2010, at 2:50 PM ET

I want to commend the Washington Post for its thorough and professional coverage of the Haitian earthquake. But not today. Today (Jan. 15), I want to kick the paper in the heinie for pouring a magnum of beat sweetener all over Rajiv Shah, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and President Obama's point man in coordinating the Haitian relief.

The 900-word piece carries a headline that is as flattering as the copy it precedes: "Officials Hail USAID Chief's Crisis Management Skills." The article's author, Philip Rucker, records a halleluiah chorus of praise for Shah from his current and former colleagues. Keep in mind that Shah has been USAID administrator all of one week.

...

http://www.slate.com/id/2241545/?from=rss

More info at linked articles:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2010792002__courtesy_of_usaid_caption.html?syndication=rss

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/thebusinessofgiving/2010243353_former_gates_foundation_exec_r.html?prmid=obinsite


You have to see a pic of this guy. You can tell by looking at him, there's no way he knows anything about anything PRACTICAL. And he's in charge of the entire US Haiti relief effort.

Ya think this might be a problem?

I certainly do.

[Schema Thing]

1. How?

"You can tell by looking at him, there's no way he knows anything about anything PRACTICAL."



How can you tell "by looking"?

[lapfog_1]

2. His bio makes him qualified.

MD in medicine, M. Sc in Economics, Director for Agricultural Development at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics and Chief Scientist at the Department of Agriculture.

Sounds like a driven intelligent person to me.



What is there about this picture that makes you think otherwise???

[catnhatnh]

3. Why don't you post this a 3rd time?

Maybe someone will agree with you on that thread.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. You do realise that article is criticising the reporter, not Shah, don't you?

Shafer has nothing bad to say about Shah at all: "Don't get me wrong. I'm not disappointed just because the Post didn't get any dirt on Shah. They didn't get any clean on him, either. "

What he's doing is saying that the reporter is running a purely congratulatory piece with no news in it, so that the reporter will be looked on favourably in the future.

I'm interested in your ability to judge people's competence based on an internet photo. Is it obvious that he's a doctor from the photo, to you? Are all doctors ignorant of 'anything PRACTICAL', or just ones with a certain look? Can we see one of you so we can judge you as well?

[bemildred]

5. WaPo has fallen a long way.

It's getting to where I look for some other source before posting.