In the Washington Post's news release about Mrs. Obama's address to the NGA about child obesity, I was interested to find what the writer included and added in the article.
As we also wrote about the speech in class, I was familiar with the address and Mrs. Obama's agenda. In the Post's article, little was said of her agenda and an overall practical briefing occurred instead.
The author starts with Mrs. Obama talking about her initiative to reduce childhood obesity, and goes into politics and money right away, straying away from Mrs. Obama's message.
He cites Mrs. Obama's comments about bipartisanship but then goes into off topic subjects such as budget gaps, quotes about financial standpoints and stimulus money.
The point of Mrs. Obama's speech was about governors needing to recognize that while there are many economical issues going on, health should still be a priority. I don't think this was captured in the speech. The writer cites her emotionally charged quotes such as "Our kids didn't do this to themselves," and "our kids can't afford for us to get this wrong," but leaves about the information about one in three kids is obese, or one in three kids will develop diabetes. This is important information and makes the issue more relevant.
Additionally the author left out Mrs. Obama's strong stance on the fact that childhood obesity stems from the fact that government actions have allowed lax federal school meals that could be healthier, less money for parks and community centers because of budget cuts, and cuts on physical education programs because of a lack of school funding. None of this was mentioned, instead the author focused on money, general health care worries, and a superficial level of analysis on the need for bipartisanship.
I think the author could have captured Mrs. Obama's point more eloquently, and sticked to the subject matter more. There is a lot to discuss outside of what was said, but the information outside of Mrs. Obama's speech that the author used seems irrelevant.