post5

In "Clay Refuses Army Oath; Stripped of Boxing Crown" the author's language shows an obvious bias against Muhammad Ali's decision. The use of Ali's American name Cassius Clay, for starters, was a way for the New York Times to jab at Ali's choice to follow his religion rather than go to war. The reporter leaves Ali's statement for the end of the article which doesn't make too much sense to me. It seems as if he filled the article with some useless information just to make Ali look worse before getting to the news that people actually should be reading. For instance, "He had obeyed Muslim dietary strictures by passing up the ham sandwich included in the inductees' box lunches." There the reporter tries to mock Ali and his religion. Another useless piece of news blocking what was actually going on is the 'Groups With Signs.' Here he notes the protestors of the vietnam war contrasting the the white and black groups of people. "The Negro eventually swelled into a group of about two dozen circling pickets carrying hastily scrawled, "Burn, Baby, Burn." He definitely makes the black protestors seem out of control compared to the group of white protestors who were said to have been asking for the Vietnam war to stop and greater civil rights efforts.