See this article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/us/politics/28campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
This article is just about as "newsy" as you could get - which makes me wonder if it is dileberatly sticking to the rules as the election approaches. While I scoured this article, I could find nothing biased about it - it comes as close to "unbaised" as I believe you can get.
The lede is: "Senators John McCain and Barack Obama began to make their final arguments for the presidency on Monday in dueling speeches across the battleground state of Ohio." I think this is pretty simple - it addresses the 5 W's and sets up the article well. The nut graph is found in the next paragraph:
"With just a week remaining in the presidential campaign, the Democratic and Republican rivals are zeroing in on the economy, taxes and jobs as they campaign in a handful of swing states. On Monday alone, the campaigns planned to also be in North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida."
This highlights the signifigance of the topic at hand (last attempts by McCain and Obama to get votes!). It's a pretty clear, to-the-point nut graph, I think.
What is interesting about this article is that instead of using sources (like the respective campaigns!) it uses sources like experts from Standord and other professors. Perhaps this is another attempt to stay un-baised...or at least to seem so.
The kicker is a quote-kicker, and the article ends:
"If big government spenders control the House and the Senate and, heaven forbid, the White House, they will have a monopoly of power in Washington,” Ms. Palin said, “and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda — it would put America on a path that erodes the strong work ethic that made America great.”
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Week 5 Article Review
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20campaign.html?ref=politics
This article is about the news that Colin Powell has come out in support of Barack Obama in the U.S. Presidential debate.
The article comes after Powell was featured on "Meet the Press." I had a interesting time wrapping my head around this one - in a way, I feel that it walks a very find line between biased and not due to the organization of the information and the matieral included in the article.
It begins with pretty straight up news format coverage. The lede is even bland to some extent:
"Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president on Sunday morning, calling him a “transformational figure” who has reached out to all Americans with an inclusive campaign and displayed “a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity” and “a depth of knowledge” in his approach to the nation’s problems. "
"It goes on to expound on this. The nut graph comes shortly after the lede, and is probably the following:
The endorsement, on the NBC public-affairs program “Meet the Press,” was a major blow to Senator John McCain, who has been a good friend of Mr. Powell’s for decades. Mr. Powell, a Republican, has advised Mr. McCain in the past on foreign policy. "
This is probably why this article gets under my skin - maybe its less about bias and more about just reporting in a certain way. I guess the lede, the nut graph both seem..."gossipy"?...for lack of a better term. It focuses on why this is scandalous, as opposed to what effect this news might have. It's central arguement is why Colin Powell criticized McCain, NOT why he supports Obama.
Similarly, the organization is not "ABAB" in that it simply doesn't give any other side to the issue. What is intruging is that the organization of the information is juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest that Colin Powell's decision was the right one - meaning, there will be a quote from him saying why he supports Obama, and then his will be followed up by a McCain jab....again and again. It's layer like this throughout the article - and to me they seem like they should be reported as two seperate issues....maybe that's wrong though.
The kicker is a quote kicker. It's clear and to-the-point and I think it does a nice job of finishing things off nicely.
This article is about the news that Colin Powell has come out in support of Barack Obama in the U.S. Presidential debate.
The article comes after Powell was featured on "Meet the Press." I had a interesting time wrapping my head around this one - in a way, I feel that it walks a very find line between biased and not due to the organization of the information and the matieral included in the article.
It begins with pretty straight up news format coverage. The lede is even bland to some extent:
"Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president on Sunday morning, calling him a “transformational figure” who has reached out to all Americans with an inclusive campaign and displayed “a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity” and “a depth of knowledge” in his approach to the nation’s problems. "
"It goes on to expound on this. The nut graph comes shortly after the lede, and is probably the following:
The endorsement, on the NBC public-affairs program “Meet the Press,” was a major blow to Senator John McCain, who has been a good friend of Mr. Powell’s for decades. Mr. Powell, a Republican, has advised Mr. McCain in the past on foreign policy. "
This is probably why this article gets under my skin - maybe its less about bias and more about just reporting in a certain way. I guess the lede, the nut graph both seem..."gossipy"?...for lack of a better term. It focuses on why this is scandalous, as opposed to what effect this news might have. It's central arguement is why Colin Powell criticized McCain, NOT why he supports Obama.
Similarly, the organization is not "ABAB" in that it simply doesn't give any other side to the issue. What is intruging is that the organization of the information is juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest that Colin Powell's decision was the right one - meaning, there will be a quote from him saying why he supports Obama, and then his will be followed up by a McCain jab....again and again. It's layer like this throughout the article - and to me they seem like they should be reported as two seperate issues....maybe that's wrong though.
The kicker is a quote kicker. It's clear and to-the-point and I think it does a nice job of finishing things off nicely.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Article Review
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/12/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm?postversion=2008101215
This article is in pretty standard hard news format and content.
It begins with a fact, which illustrates the topic at hand: falling gas prices. It then goes on to outline the issue, which, while not a controversial one, still layers quotes from multiple sources and factual databases.
The nutgraph, which highlightes the connection between the declining economy and commodity prices, comes in the third brief paragraph.
"The decline comes as hurricane season winds down and oil prices drop because demand is likely to weaken as the economy slows."
I feel that this effectively ties the issue to the larger point.
This article is interesting because there is no room for alternate viewpoint as I see it. I would say its "ABAB" in format, but there is one single fact that this article is reporting on: gas prices are falling. There is numberical evidence to this point. So, in that light, the article is a good example of how to write a piece when there really isn't much of an opposing viewpoint.
I would say that this is somewhere between a fizzleout kicker and a fact-based kicker. The article ends with "The survey is conducted for AAA by Oil Price Information Service from credit card swipes at more than 85,000 service stations nationwide" and this highlights the signifigance of the evidence contained in the piece. However, the detail is probably erroneous to the overall message of the article.
This article is in pretty standard hard news format and content.
It begins with a fact, which illustrates the topic at hand: falling gas prices. It then goes on to outline the issue, which, while not a controversial one, still layers quotes from multiple sources and factual databases.
The nutgraph, which highlightes the connection between the declining economy and commodity prices, comes in the third brief paragraph.
"The decline comes as hurricane season winds down and oil prices drop because demand is likely to weaken as the economy slows."
I feel that this effectively ties the issue to the larger point.
This article is interesting because there is no room for alternate viewpoint as I see it. I would say its "ABAB" in format, but there is one single fact that this article is reporting on: gas prices are falling. There is numberical evidence to this point. So, in that light, the article is a good example of how to write a piece when there really isn't much of an opposing viewpoint.
I would say that this is somewhere between a fizzleout kicker and a fact-based kicker. The article ends with "The survey is conducted for AAA by Oil Price Information Service from credit card swipes at more than 85,000 service stations nationwide" and this highlights the signifigance of the evidence contained in the piece. However, the detail is probably erroneous to the overall message of the article.
Monday, October 6, 2008
News Analysis
This article can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/science/earth/07mammal.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
This hard news story discusses the trend of an increasing number of endangered species worldwide. It begins with the lede: “An “extinction crisis” is under way, with one in four mammals in danger of disappearing because of habitat loss, hunting and climate change, a leading global conservation body warned Monday” which some might consider a quote lede.
The nut graph comes very quickly after the lede, and emphasizes why this trend is important: “Within our lifetime, hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions,” said Julia Marton-Lefèvre, the director general of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or I.U.C.N., a network of campaign groups, governments, scientists and other experts.” This is obviously a "killer quote" to follow up the lede. The article does a nice job of layering sources: there are facts, statistics, but also several quotes from “experts” in different fields.
While this article very definitely takes the form of an inverted triangle, it does not have an “ABAB” format for differing viewpoints. It is interesting that this article is not about human individuals, and so I think that this is perhaps because it is a less controversial subject that this format suits.
Finally, the article ends on a “fizzle out” note: “The I.U.C.N. said increases in the population of the elephants in southern and eastern Africa were big enough to offset any decreases taking place elsewhere.” This is a diversion from the original “so what” of the article and so seems as though the writer has simply run out of material to cover.
What I like about this article is that it organizes material very well: it sends a clear message (animal endangerment is a serious threat) while still being very objective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/science/earth/07mammal.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin
This hard news story discusses the trend of an increasing number of endangered species worldwide. It begins with the lede: “An “extinction crisis” is under way, with one in four mammals in danger of disappearing because of habitat loss, hunting and climate change, a leading global conservation body warned Monday” which some might consider a quote lede.
The nut graph comes very quickly after the lede, and emphasizes why this trend is important: “Within our lifetime, hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions,” said Julia Marton-Lefèvre, the director general of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or I.U.C.N., a network of campaign groups, governments, scientists and other experts.” This is obviously a "killer quote" to follow up the lede. The article does a nice job of layering sources: there are facts, statistics, but also several quotes from “experts” in different fields.
While this article very definitely takes the form of an inverted triangle, it does not have an “ABAB” format for differing viewpoints. It is interesting that this article is not about human individuals, and so I think that this is perhaps because it is a less controversial subject that this format suits.
Finally, the article ends on a “fizzle out” note: “The I.U.C.N. said increases in the population of the elephants in southern and eastern Africa were big enough to offset any decreases taking place elsewhere.” This is a diversion from the original “so what” of the article and so seems as though the writer has simply run out of material to cover.
What I like about this article is that it organizes material very well: it sends a clear message (animal endangerment is a serious threat) while still being very objective.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Palin v. Biden: A Close Call on Who Wins
by Elizabeth Porter
KALAMAZOO – After much speculation about whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would hold up against Senator Joe Biden in the first and only vice-presidential debate of the election season, it seems that, even with the low public expectations set for her performance, Palin and Biden were equally matched to the challenge. The debate, which aired live from Washington University in St Louis last night, was highly anticipated by both the Republican and Democratic parties as a pivotal event in determining the outcome of the quickly-approaching elections.
A week after pollsters have reported significant drops in support for the McCain candidacy, all eyes were on Sarah Palin as her ability to debate and the pressure of the task-at-hand were largely questioned by the public. Palin set the casual tone for the night by introducing herself to Biden and asking, “Hey, can I call you Joe?” as she shook hands with the senator. As Palin and Biden argued, at time heatedly, about issues ranging from taxes and healthcare to the Iraq War and gay marriage, both directly addressed the American people, looking straight into the camera.
Several political barbs were exchanged by both candidates. Palin repeatedly questioned Biden on his record in the Senate. “Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war,” said Palin. Biden in turn stated his views of the McCain healthcare plan as inadequate. “I call that the "Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere,” said Biden of the plan.
While the winner of last night’s debate is still unclear, one thing is certain: both candidates held their own against intense public speculation. It is estimated that over 50 million people watched the debates last night, an unprecedented number.
KALAMAZOO – After much speculation about whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would hold up against Senator Joe Biden in the first and only vice-presidential debate of the election season, it seems that, even with the low public expectations set for her performance, Palin and Biden were equally matched to the challenge. The debate, which aired live from Washington University in St Louis last night, was highly anticipated by both the Republican and Democratic parties as a pivotal event in determining the outcome of the quickly-approaching elections.
A week after pollsters have reported significant drops in support for the McCain candidacy, all eyes were on Sarah Palin as her ability to debate and the pressure of the task-at-hand were largely questioned by the public. Palin set the casual tone for the night by introducing herself to Biden and asking, “Hey, can I call you Joe?” as she shook hands with the senator. As Palin and Biden argued, at time heatedly, about issues ranging from taxes and healthcare to the Iraq War and gay marriage, both directly addressed the American people, looking straight into the camera.
Several political barbs were exchanged by both candidates. Palin repeatedly questioned Biden on his record in the Senate. “Oh, yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider. And someone just not used to the way you guys operate. Because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war,” said Palin. Biden in turn stated his views of the McCain healthcare plan as inadequate. “I call that the "Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere,” said Biden of the plan.
While the winner of last night’s debate is still unclear, one thing is certain: both candidates held their own against intense public speculation. It is estimated that over 50 million people watched the debates last night, an unprecedented number.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
