Mr. Doyle McManus

Doyle McManus
L.A. Times
January 2015

In 1952, Doyle McManus was born to Lois Doyle and James R. McManus. His biographies are rather malnourished and only contain information regarding his later careers. Despite a scarcity of knowledge of his background, it is known that McManus earned a bachelors in history at Stanford University and was recognized as a scholar in the University of Brussels. During his academic career, McManus often spent days working on the Stanford Daily, an act that would build his familiarity with the topic of journalism. From his undergraduate life, McManus dove into politics and worked in the United Press International to aid in newspaper development. Four years following his graduation from Stanford, McManus joined the L.A. Times, from which he has grown remarkably popular among other scholars, critics, and columnists. He has, over the course of his working career, spent many hours contributing to other newspapers and PBS commentaries.

Doyle McManus is held to such a high esteem with regards to his frequent posts regarding the political sphere and his academic success from admirable universities. Nothing rolls off the tongue quite like "Stanford University." As mentioned before, McManus is an active participant in all things political, articles ranging from domestic troubles to foreign policies. Most recently, however, McManus has reviewed Mr. President's 2014 year, anticipated Mitt Romney's return to the 2016 election, informed of rising tensions in the middle east, and introduced Iran's nuclear military as a threat to our safety as a nation.

From reading these articles, I had trouble uncovering Mr. McManus' true political affiliation. It is admirable that McManus refrains from abusing politically biased arguments and appears as a rather logical and respectable person who makes decisions more based off evidence and less based off party. Interesting. However, L.A Times had to spoil the guessing game and indirectly label Mr. McManus as republican by categorizing his articles under "Republican Party." Mr. McManus' logical approach to situations paints him as void of bias and a reasonable person altogether (that's not to say that conformists are not reasonable). He was willing to analyze the situation for what it is.

On the topic of credibility, I would argue that Mr. Doyle McManus is a reliable source of information. Unlike my last pundit, Fareed Zakaria, he has never committed "foul play" under his literary license. McManus is clean of crimes, including plagiarism. In addition to his promising history, McManus presents information fairly to the audience. He does not rely as much on appeal to logos as Zakaria might, but makes his argument and persuades his audience in a different manner that complements his personal style. For this reason, I would mark Doyle McManus as a strong player in his field and a prominent figure in the direction of politics.