People are Innately Helpful!

Another rare occurrence in the newspaper! Today's article talked about people being nice, rather than people being corrupt, viscous, or worst of all dead. This article talked about a study showing people's inherent nature to be nice to one another. According to the article "the somewhat surprising answer at which some biologists have arrived is that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others."

The article did a good job keeping things simple, and reminded me a lot of the kind of writing style I would try to emulate if were writing a scientific article without using any scientific words. However, I think the article may have lost the attention of a lot of readers once it reached the second page. At the same time however, had a lot of very interesting information for a someone who is either very interested in the subject (me) or someone who is well-versed in this field. As a result if I were the editor of the newspaper I would continue to keep the length of the article, even if some readers wont be reading it the whole way through.

Article Tone

I think this article provided a lot of great information. Although there has been a lot of talk and analysis about Obama's new plan for troops in Afghanistan, very little has been said about the reactions from Afghanistan and Pakistan so far. I found this really interesting, especially when Obama addressed the Afghani people directly in his speech.

However, some things about this article seemed slightly more biased than usual. For example the first sentence on the front page of the website: "American diplomats scrambled to reassure the two countries at the center of President Obama’s war strategy that the U.S. would not cut and run." The use of the word scrambled seems a little unnecessary and biased to me. Thankfully this was fixed in the actual article and replaced with the word work.

The article had the tough job of analyzing a very subjective thing: the tone and feelings of the leaders and newspapers in Afghanistan. In my opinion they did a good job overall, but a couple of choice words worried me.

Learning!

I love it when I read an article in the paper that teaches me something. I know, I know, how very nerdy of me, but seriously- how often is it that you find an article about a subject you know very little about and you learn something? It's hard enough to do this in schools let alone the paper.

This article took advertising and taught me something new. It took a subject that I know nothing about and broke it down so I could understand. Not only that but it brought me up to speed on what is happening in the advertising world now. It used simple language and brought in names that everyone would know to give the reader something to relate to. (For example, we all know about the AT&T ads, but what we didn't know was that they were suing Verizon.) Anyway, this article was great in my opinion and I now know a whole lot more about the advertisement industry.

Reactions

Today's article talked about a piece of news that was received with many mixed feelings. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has declared that women should not start going in for mammograms until age 50.

Some women viewed this information as a relief. No longer would they have to go through the excruciating process that is breast cancer screening until they were 50. However, many other women were skeptical about this new statement. Why was it being released? How did the United States Preventive Services Task Force know what they were talking about?

This article did a good job taking a lot of different issues and presenting them in a non-biased way. In addition, it was about to show the confusion and emotion that came as a result of the announcement. I like how even though some of the quotes in the article didn't say anything specific, they were included to help show how women have reacted to the news. For example: "'Why all of a sudden this change?' said Karen Sun, 41, who was loading her groceries into her car here in Los Angeles.'“It feels out of nowhere.'" This seemingly casual exchange gave the article the ability to show the "peoples" reaction.

Fun article

This article was a fun and interesting read. Apparently, Facebook can save your life or at least it did in the case of Rodney Bradford. The article thankfully realized the humor in Facebook saving someone's life and made sure not to make the article too serious. They did, however, make sure to include all the information necessary for the article to be complete. It was not just a fluff piece, but it does include some sarcasm and humor throughout the paper.

Although the article shows the importance of Facebook in this case. It makes sure to keep the readers grounded by including information about how Facebook cannot be used as the only source to prove someone's innocence. Facebook was only used to help further prove Bradfords innocence. "The Facebook entry was just “icing on the cake,” since his client had other witnesses who provided an alibi."

Sniper Execution

For a girl who can vividly remember the "duck and cover" exercises that students had to perform in schools throughout the DC area, this article really hit home with me. I think the structure and writing style of the article were both great especially for a topic that is so old. Although the sniper was only executed today, it's been over seven years since his attacks.

The article does a good job of covering something that may not be in the forefront of everyone's minds anymore, and still making it significant. It didn't spend an overly long time talking about the events of the past, but gave just enough evidence of the crimes to remind readers why he was being sentenced to death today. In addition, he gave plenty of information on how his sentence was arranged and why it took place today without making it sound like a rule book instead of a newspaper article.

Abortion in Healthcare

Articles about the health care reform legislation have ranged in all sorts of subjects and most of them end up in the front page of the paper. However, today's health care article featured the abortion part of the legislation. In the version of legislation that the House passed, there would be a block on "the use of federal money for 'any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,' except in the case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger."

It was an interesting article that took a subtle look at the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch. Instead of directly talking about where the President was struggling to get Congress to cooperate, it stated the facts and showed an example- abortion. Even between the two branches of Congress there are differences. The abortion issue is only part of a number of changes that members of the Senate are hoping to make in the health care legislation.

Style Section

Today I found an interesting article in the style section. Sure it may talk about fashion, but here is an instance where fashion directly translates into the civil rights of students. These students are dealing with a fight that has much more at stake then when we used to fight for the tank top width to be two fingers instead of three. It was interesting to see the perspective of both the principals and the students. Without a principals perspective I don't think we could have easily understood the complexity of the issue.

I also enjoyed how the articles lead was unique. Instead of using the simple who what when where why how paragraph this author had a quirky "math problem" and questions. He was still able to answer the 5 w's and 1 h questions but chose to do so in a more interesting and attention grabbing way.

Fat People Have Feelings Too.

Today's article surprised me. It talked about overweight Americans and how they are starting to weigh in on the healthcare debates. It didn't mention a lot of specifics but it did give a good overarching view about the general sentiment of overweight Americans. Although the connection between overweight people and the health care debates wasn't very interesting to me. The idea of "fat pride" was bizarre and fascinating to me.

I think the article should have focused more on the general American sentiment that being overweight means that you're not healthy. Instead of showing the reader why this sentiment isn't true, the author just assumed that this was common knowledge and focused instead on how this sentiment was being expressed during the healthcare debates. I don't want to seem inconsiderate, but I always assumed that fat people were unhealthy and that most fat people are trying to work towards being the proper weight. The idea of "fat pride" is a completely new concept for me- and while I totally believe in being confident in your own body, I think never considered the idea of a healthy fat person who should be prideful of their body. I think an article talking more about "fat pride" would have been more interesting to me.

Comparing Leads...

Since the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, three different articles have been written about the incident. Two from the New York Times and one from the Washington Post. I'm going to use this blog entry to compare the leads in these three articles.

Post: "An Army psychiatrist, trained to treat soldiers under stress, allegedly opened fire Thursday in a crowded medical building at Fort Hood, Tex. When the assault ended minutes later, the attack had become what is believed to be the largest mass shooting ever to occur on a U.S. military base. Twelve were killed, 31 wounded."

Times 1: "An Army psychiatrist facing deployment to one of America’s war zones killed 12 people and wounded 31 others on Thursday in a shooting rampage with two handguns at the sprawling Fort Hood Army post in Central Texas, military officials said."

Times 2: "WASHINGTON — Born and reared in Virginia, the son of immigrant parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem, he joined the Army right out of high school, against his parents’ wishes. The Army, in turn, put him through college and then medical school, where he trained to be a psychiatrist."

I think the article that provided the most information was Times 1. The lead is short and to the point, but gives the all the relevant information in a simple way. The Post lead is also good, although a little wordy, but it doesn't talk about the "why." You can argue that because we don't know the reasons why Hasan shot at the crowd yet, it shouldn't be included but the fact that he was soon to be deployed seems important to me.

The second times article's lead is nothing like the other two. We can't figure out 'everything we need to know' from this lead at all. The article, unlike the other two articles, focuses on Hasan, his history and possible reasons for his actions. Without the other Times article, this article would be useless, because it doesn't explain what happened at all. I happened to read this article first, and was very confused by the end.

Good Article

I really appreciated this article's subject. It was an article discussing the protests that have been going on in Iran since the elections this summer. Recently, most articles in the paper about Iran solely mention their nuclear plans and it seems as though everyone has forgotten how illegitimate the Iranian government of today is. Thankfully, this article discussed how the usual Nov. 4th anti-American rallies may be taken over by anti-government rallies from the green movement.

Although the article's subject was great and probably very difficult to receive seeing as any information from Iran about opposition movements is difficult to come by from a credible source, the writing was a little weak. For example, the lead wasn't until the third paragraph and a lot of the information was broad. For example, "Thousands of reformist figures were arrested in the unrest that followed the election, and many remain in jail." I for one would appreciate some harder numbers. However, the subject out-weighed the writing in this case, still making this a solid article.

An Article or an Ad?

While this article was really cool and fun to read about, it felt more like an add than an actual article. The article talks about different ways technology can be adapted so that it is "elderly friendly." According to the article more and more elderly folk are starting to use technology. Yet instead of saying how that trend came about or what this could mean, we just got a list of elderly targeted technology products. There wasn't even a single quote or source in the article!

In my opinion this was a terrible waste of newspaper space. Unless the author was bribed by the products mentioned in the article then it really should not have ran in the paper. Might as well use that space for an actual add.

Reasons I Love Reading the Paper...

Today I just read the article saying that the CIA has been paying Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in Afghanistan's illegal opium trade for the past 8 years. I know, I know, my first reaction was "wait whaaat?" too. I would have had no idea, thank God I read my daily paper. The political blogs I usually read mentioned nothing about it. (Although to be fair, neither has the Washington Post)

In fact, according to my research using google news there are a little over 200 sources covering this news. Today there have been over 500 sources covering Michael Jackson's death. Still. Of course this is including sources such as ABC Online and political blogs, but still the difference in numbers is very impressive. I think most of this difference is a result of the newspapers being required to be entertainers in order to make a profit. Hearst showed us the importance of what story you choose to write about in selling the paper. Still, you would think that the CIA paying an Afghanistani drug lord would be the classic Hearstian "Gee Whiz" story.

I'm going to conclude that because this story is still breaking that is why there are so few sources covering it. Hopefully by the end of the week both the Washington Post and the 24 hour news channels will cover this story as well.

Never knew that..

Maybe thisarticle just caught me on a good day, but I really enjoyed reading it. It took a conventional wisdom that I had always had and showed me that I could be wrong, without being preachy or annoyingly superior.

Although the lead was a question I think this worked particularly well in this article. If instead of asking a question Tara Pope had started off with a fact, the readers may have jumped to the conclusion that she is off her rocker and either didn't do enough research, didn't do the right research, or is showing a very skewed way of thinking. This first impression could have ruined the effect of the rest of the article. The rest of the article provided a lot of different perspectives, including an evolutionary perspective to help demonstrate the idea that long-distance running should not cause humans the pain it does.

Baby Not-so Einstein

Here's an interesting article in today's paper that actually made it onto the front page. Apparently, Walt Disney is offering refunds for the Baby Einstein videos that were sold. I had learned in child psychology that by watching the Baby Einstein videos when the child is younger than 2 actually hurts the baby more than it helps, so the fact that Disney is acknowledging this and now offering refunds is really interesting.

I think this article does a really good job showing the proper set up of a newspaper article. With just the first sentence, the reader has a good grasp on all the information that he or she would need to gain from the article: "Parent alert: the Walt Disney Company is now offering refunds for all those “Baby Einstein” videos that did not make children into geniuses." As the article progresses we get more details. The reader first gets a brief explanation on what the Baby Einstein videos and the article goes on to explain the problems with the videos and the changes that lawyers want Disney to make.

The history of the struggle between the lawyers and Disney is written very fluidly and has quotes and facts from all the right people. There are quotes from the psychiatrists, lawyers and CEOs. Finally the article ends with a small sentence on what parents should be doing instead of letting their children watch Baby Einstein videos, leaving the reader with the right last impression of the article.

It's All in the Details...

Today's article was titled " Field Study: Just How Relevant is Political Science" caught my attention as a student taking quite a few political science classes. I anticipated reading an article that would some how dissect the current relevance of political science to what is going on in the world today. There was even the opportunity to discuss the past relevance of political science and what political scientists do for a living. Regardless, there were plenty of angles the author could have taken all of which would have given the reader far more information than the actual article did.

The article was very vague and either assumed its readers knew a lot more than they did or did not do enough research to fill in the details. The most specific information we got was: "Yet even some of the most vehement critics of the Coburn proposal acknowledge that political scientists themselves vigorously debate the field’s direction, what sort of questions it pursues, even how useful the research is." This isn't enough for me. What are the possible directions? What research is currently being performed? Another instance of this vagueness was shown by this quote: "In recent years he and other scholars, including Robert Putnam and Theda Skocpol, both former presidents of the American Political Science Association, have urged colleagues not to shy away from 'the big questions.'" What are the big questions? you cant just put it in quotes and assume the readers know.

Overall, I think the article lacked a lot of fleshing out and could have used specifics so that the average reader would have understood the article.

WOW

I think everyone in the United States should read this article. It is so amazing that I have a hard time believing it myself. Each day a new part of the series has been released and I find myself itching for more. Not only was this New York Times reporter held captive by the taliban, but he was able to somehow escape and write this series. David Rholdes choice of telling the story chronologically instead of summarizing the entire even and then going into detail was a good choice. With each day, something completely unexpected happens. Also, I'm dying to know how he eventually manages to escape and by saving this information to the end, the actual events that occur are given more weight.

I find it interesting that the Washington Post has not covered this story in any way. Although this is the article of a New York Times reporter I figured that with an ordeal this big the Post would want to publish something on the subject. However, newspaper politics may require the post to wait until all parts of the series are published. I wouldn't be surprised if the Washington Post ended up publishing the same series after the New York Times finishes it. I would definitely be more inclined to buy the New York Times in anticipation of what happens in the rest of David Rholdes's story.

Not National News.

Today's article was a very personal story about a pregnant woman barely surviving swine flu. It was a good story of a near death experience, but I don't think it deserved to be in the national newspaper. It seemed a lot like the sort of stories that you hear on the tv about another "missing blonde girl." It's almost as though they're running out of stories about the swine flu and are now turning local news into national news.

Sure, the story was very touching and it is sad that she lost her baby, but this information does not impact my life at all. The author did try to tie in some sort of relevance to the story by claiming that the story was a warning to people who are taking the flu lightly. Still, I think it is a bit of a stretch. I think the editor of this story should have asked the author to turn it into some sort of a tear jerker or an exciting story about her struggle and used it as a feature rather than an article.

Cool New Technology!

This article talks abotu a cool new technology that has just reached the publics attention called Foursquare. Foursquare "lets users “check in” with a cellphone at a bar, restaurant or art gallery. That alerts their friends to their current location so they can drop by and say hello." The article portrayed a lot of different aspects of the new program ranging from the business side, to the perspectives of the users, to the history of the invention of the program.

An interesting, almost Hearstian, twist that was added to this article was the idea that Foursquare was like a secret club, where only the really trendy people are involved. This added entertainment value to the article. It was a the subtle seductively of being a part of this exclusive group of people that kept my interest throughout the article.

Washington Post v New York Times pt. 2

In the "Elements of Journalism" it was noted that one of the most important things that must occur to ensure good journalism was citizen participation. Citizens should be reading the paper and responding to it. In fact, the news should be more like a conversation. So today I decided to look at how the New York Times and the Washington Post allows for readers to respond.

The first thing I noticed was that only the New York Times provided a link to allow readers to comment on an article. Even this, was only provided on some articles and often the comments will have "closed" on an article. The Washington Post did not provide any links to comment. Both sites did provide links to their respective Blogs that allowed for readers to post comments, but I was not satisfied with this. After searching with the toolbar for "letters to the editor" I was able to find both site's Letters to the Editor sections. The New York Times even provided instructions on how to send in letters. (I was able to find the same information for the Washington Post under the F.A.Q. section)

All in all, although there are many new and interesting methods of allowing citizens to participate (including a moderated discussion group) in both papers. I think the Times provided a slightly better way to allow participation for its readers.

Architecture Article

Today's article reminded me of the article we wrote in class together about stem cell research. Both articles featured topics that require expert knowledge to explain. In addition, this article had the added difficulty of not being able to show a picture of the building and still needing to describe it in a way that was simple enough that people who weren't architecture majors would be able to understand.

"New Tower Takes Shape on Colombia Campus" read much like the article we wrote in class did, using quotes from experts involved to explain the material to the readers. The only main difference is that the first paragraph of "New Tower Takes Shape on Colombia Campus" does not answer the five w's and the h. Honestly, it has very little to do with the rest of the articles at all. Instead, it serves as a hook and provides a little bit of context to the rest of the article.

Wellesley in the Paper!

Today's article featured someone close to home. A professor at Wellesley, Karl Case, was used as a source in the article. Overall the article took a very scientific approach to the housing crisis. I'm not sure why they chose a Wellesley professor as a source to comment on this subject, however, the comments made were all very relevant and added to the article.

In addition they chose a Yale professor as a source, to provide another viewpoint instead of just using one source's view. Both of these sources spoke in a very simplistic manner so that the average person without a lot of background knowledge on the subject could understand. Overall, this article took a subject I would normally not be interested in or very knowledgeable about and kept me interested and even taught me a thing or two.

Nobel Peace Prize

Today at 10:30 in the morning the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama. If this had happened before the computer age, the world wouldn't have known until the next day. However, with the New York Times constantly updating the online edition we were able to read an article that was printed October 10th on October 9th.

Overall, the article was a good read although I'm not sure there was enough information in the article. Obviously with so little time between when the announcement was made and when the article was written there wasn't enough time to get a lot of detailed information. However, this article does do a good job of recounting everyones reactions to the announcement. I would have liked to see some more information regarding from the perspective of the decision-makers involved with the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe some information regarding how recipients are usually chosen or even a couple of past recipients. Yes, the article mentioned Nelson Mandela and Lech Walesa, but it didn't mention Jimmy Carter or Henry Kissinger.

Also, another semi-unrelated thing I noted: the article referred to President Obama as Mr. Obama the entire article. His title right now is President not Mr. If we refer to senators as Sen. So-and-so then shouldn't Mr. Obama be President Obama? Just a thought.

The Pain in Reading the Local News

Every time I read my local my local paper I wonder why I even try. The articles are so amateurish that it's almost painful to read them. Today's article was about a recent debate that had occurred between incumbent Margi Vanderhye and her Republican challenger Barbara Comstock. Although the content and subject of the article was pertinent to the readers of the times, because it was so poorly written, I doubt any readers took anything from the article.

The author used a "he said she said" format through out the whole article giving a play by play of what occurred during the debate. First so-and-so asked a question, then Vanderhye said this, then Comstock said that, and on and on for the whole article. In fact, the word said was used 27 times in the whole article! Articles are meant to be more than just listing what happened, otherwise we would just watch footage of the debate on youtube (or go to the actual debate). Unfortunately, because of the boring writing style and format the value of the article decreased significantly.

Swine Flu Logistics... Important to Know

Swine flu. Just the word strikes a wave of fear into our hearts. Whether this fear is justified has recently been debated. However, when news of a vaccine being released came out, everyone wanted to get their hands on it. Today's article was about swine flu, but instead of being about the actual disease or the making of the vaccine, it talked about the logistics of getting the vaccine out to the nation.

I thought this was an impressive article because not only did it talk about an important subject that isn't on the front of everyone's minds when they think about swine flu, but also because of the way the author, Anemona Hartocollis presented information on an issue that is occurring in the future. Most articles I have read have covered an event or a discovery that has already occurred in the past. However, with this article Hartocollis needed to present information about what she and other sources predict will happen in the future. She talked about the current nations extremely strong desire to get the vaccine and how that will effect the logistics when the vaccine arrives.

I was also impressed by the topic of the article. Although logistics aren't exciting or sexy news, it is important and I'm glad the New York Times said something about it. The article was not sensationalized, but it provided a lot of important information.

Cool Article (To Me)

Today's article was a fascinating read. Well, to me, a girl who is majoring in psychology, at least. I think the beginning of the article hooks any the reader in. It's witty and paints images of the absurd to grabs the readers interest. However as the article continues it gets more scientific and less interesting to the average reader. Although to me it was fascinating, I think the average reader would not see the significance in this study. In fact, the author explains that this study still needs more research to be done and will not change anything in the school systems. Once again, it seems as though the media has written an article before enough scientific research has been done to support the claims.

In addition the further you read the article, the more scientifically complex it became. By the end of the article words like "anterior cingulate cortex" were being tossed around without any explanation. This caused me to believe that the author was targeting an educated audience rather than the average reader of the New York Times.

Incomplete

Today's article was once again on a rather depressing topic. Only today instead of being a topic that was depressing but still necessary for everyone to know- it was a very unnecessary article.

The article was about the rate of preterm deaths in different countries around the world. A report was published last year providing a lot of data on the subject. The article goes through and mentions a lot of fact on the subjects. (For example, "the increase in the number of older women having babies and reproductive techniques that make multiples more likely are probably contributing to the trend. Black women also have a 50 percent higher rate of preterm delivery than whites.") After listing an abundance of information I was hoping that the reporter would help the readers sift through the information provided. Essentially, help the reader make use of the information. Instead however the author just ends with: "The report did not outline strategies for reducing preterm births globally, but a more detailed study due in 2010 is expected to do so." I feel as though the current article is lacking a major component and should have just waited until 2010 to publish any information.

I'm conflicted- A Good Sign

Today's article was a rather conflicting read. Not in the sense that it was written in a conflicting way, but just my personal reaction. The article is about detainees in Guantanamo Bay that may be moved to the U.S. Although these people are terrorists and even "self-proclaimed masterminds of Sept. 11 attacks" after reading about the conditions in federal supermax prisons I almost felt bad for them. The only word to describe my feelings after reading this article is conflicted.

The article did a good job of giving a lot of information frankly and without trying to pull at heartstrings (or for that matter without making it seem as though the detainees deserved nothing better). The reporter Peter Finn took information and opinions from a number of different sources ranging from President Obama to the lawyers of detainees. Although my reaction to the article wasn't a definite opinion in either direction, the fact that reading the article even made me feel anything at all means something. I'm always impressed when an author or a reporter or even a poet can string together words and information and make the reader feel something- anything.

Quoting Mistakes?

Today Rio won the spot for the 2016 Olympics. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post had an article on the front page describing what happened. However, while I was reading both articles something strange caught my eye.


Both articles had a quote from Bob Ctvrtlik, the USOC vice president, talking about why Chicago was not chosen. The Washington Post had the quote say: "The U.S. Olympic movement hasn't engaged with the IOC in a long time," Ctvrtlik said. "I don't think it's anti-American, but we still don't have the horsepower to do the politicizing." The times on the other hand said: " “The United States, within the Olympic movement, hasn’t engaged as well as we could have for a long time,” said Robert Ctvrtlik, the U.S.O.C. vice president for international relations. “There’s a lot of politics going on. This isn’t just on the merits. I don’t think it’s anti-American. Maybe we still don’t have the horsepower to do some of the politicking within the movement.” Although these two quotes may seem very similar the slight word change at the end of the quote has me worried. Does the US not have the horsepower to take having the Olympics in Chicago and turn it into a political issue or do we not have the horsepower to do some of the politicking that is part of the process to get Chicago the bid? Of course the difference is minute, but it is still there.

Which of these two newspapers has misquoted Ctvrtlik? If they have this quote incorrect how many other quotes do they get wrong? Can we trust these papers to give us the news? Yes, it may seem as though I'm overreacting but it is up to the people to continuously question what the media gives us in order to keep the media in line.

... Good to Know!

Today I read a very interesting articlein the Washington Post. The article was titled "Soldiers' Data Still Being Downloaded Overseas, Firm Says." Still? I didn't even know data was being downloaded ever. (I guess this is what happens when you rely on political blogs and television to give you the news) Thankfully, after reading this article, written by Ellen Nakashima, I am fully informed. Even though this article deals with technology, it manages to explain the important technological aspects without getting overly scientific and confusing (or worse, boring) the reader.

After every paragraph I would end up asking myself a question, and lo and behold the next paragraph would answer it. For example immediately after the first paragraph I asked myself "what sort of data is being stolen?" and the next paragraph answered my question: "Social Security numbers, blood types, cellphone numbers, e-mail addresses, and the names of soldiers' spouses and children." If this information had been withheld from the reader until the second or third paragraph the article would have lost a lot of its reading value.

I applaud Nakashima's structure for this article and I'm glad the article was informative without being too technological.

An Article About An Article

Today, the New York Times published an article about an essay written in the Joint Force Quarterly about ending the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. Although writing an article about an article may seem strange, the author, Elisabeth Bumiller,manages to avoid just simply summarizing the original article and actually adds a lot of insight to the subject.

She gives a brief summary of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as well as the general stance of the article. Instead of just summarizing she uses a direct quote from the essay to give a gist of what it was about. I feel like choosing a quote instead of just summarizing the information, not only was more interesting, but allowed the readers to see what kind of language was being used and just how bluntly the subject was being discussed.

Bumiller then goes on to discuss how although the article does not represent any official military points of view and has no influence on policy, it does "signal a shift in the winds." Bumiller brings up the reactions of different military personal such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mullen. Although neither Admiral Mullen nor Mr. Gates have indicated that they encourage the story in any way, Burmiller points out how this article is a step forward, drawing upon the reaction from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Bumiller is able to take an article about an article and give it a new and interesting spin.

Thanks But No Thanks Mrs. Mom

This article seems more like an opinion than something that should be featured in the Health section of the New York Times. The entire article is told from the first person and draws upon personal experiences. I've always found it a little taboo to criticize mothers. In my opinion, a mother knows what's best for their child, and if you are going to criticize you better have a good reason and a lot of information to back yourself up.

Although the author, Jane E. Brody, has sources for many of the claims she makes (such as "Randi Jacoby, a speech-language specialist in New York"). A lot of the "data" she draws upon comes from herself and her friends. This would have been okay if she was telling a cute story about a child, but by using what happens to herself and her friends and applying it to the general population, Brody loses credibility.

In my opinion, Brody seems like a preachy grandmother telling her daughter how to raise her kids. Although the advice from the grandmother is probably very good and genuine advice, it is unwanted and very situational.

Horrifying Topic, Great Article

Today's article, N.Va. Woman Aids Rescue Of Immigrants discusses a frightening topic: hostages taken by a violent Mexican smuggling cartel. Although the subject was horrible, the article was not. It deals with a frightening issue delicately, but doesn't skirt around the subject and gives plenty of information. It shows how the issue of the hostages was dealt with on a personal, local, and national level. If the author, Josh White, had instead chosen to focus on only one of these three aspects, the article would have felt incomplete. Sure, White could have focused on Berthothy's personal struggles on dealing with being put in this situation, and while that would have made for an invigorating read, it would not have explained many important aspects of the article. For example, the process that occurred after Berthothy placed the call. In addition, one of the key aspects of the article: that although "immigration officials realize that both the victims and the kidnappers have broken the law, they say they want to save lives first and sort out immigration status second" would not have been fully understood if this article had been written from a solely personal perspective. In conclusion, this article deftly discusses a horrifying topic and provides plenty of details and information without sounding like a police report.

Painful.

Today, instead of looking at articles from The New York Times and The Washington Post, I've decided to take a look at an article from my town's local newspaper, "The Mclean Connection." The Mclean Connection is your average local newpaper, covering a variety of topics from a new program for stay at home moms in the area, to why our city has not received the bulk of the promised stimulus package money yet. One article in particular that caught my eye was called "Nervous, Excited, Tense" and was written by Susan Belford.

With a title called "Nervous, Excited, Tense," I was anticipating an article that was either exciting or nerve-wracking. Instead, I got the most boring article ever. Not only was it boring, but it was poorly written as well. Now, as a lowly sophomore in college who has never written any articles for a newspaper, I usually feel ridiculous criticizing someone else's article, but in this case I feel no guilt whatsoever. By the second sentence "They were feeling tense, excited and nervous" I knew there would be nothing good coming out of this article.

Before we get to the second sentence, let me explain the first sentence: "five new teachers at Potomac Elementary faced their classes for the very first time on Aug. 31." The rest of the article doesn't really provide anything else. All that is discussed is how these new teachers are working to get through the year. The problems that are mentioned are all generalized, "staying organized", and completely obvious. Everyone has to deal with staying organized or managing his or her time. If this article had provided more specifics that are pertinent to being a new teacher at this moment in time, maybe it wouldn't have been such a struggle to reach the end of the article.

Now! Back to the second sentence. Really? They were feeling tense, excited and nervous. Not only is the sentence structure the most boring sentence structure known to man-kind, it "tells" instead of "shows." Now, I personally learned in second grade the importance of showing instead of telling and if I could figure it out then, it can't be that hard. But no! This article is filled with sentences like" "Steimer feels exhilarated about teaching every morning..." I mean, if you're going to give us a sentence like that the very least you could do is explain why.

Anyway, after reading an article like this, I'm not sure I want to read "The Mclean Connection" ever again.

A lot of Work for One Article

Today's article is a little different than the usual article I've seen in the New York Times and the post. Instead of an article about an event or a new policy this article was about a person. Specifically it was about Najibullah Zazi, a suspected terrorist who has been undergoing trials in New York this week. Obviously something as big as apprehending a suspected terrorist is going to play a prominent role in the news and media and for the last three days both the New York Times and the Washington Post have featured an article relating to Mr. Zazi's arrest on the front page. However, today is the first time an article has gone in to such depths about Mr. Zazi's past.

"From Smiling Coffee Vendor to Terror Suspect" demonstrates the immense amount of research that is involved in publishing a quality article. In fact, 4 staffers contributed to the story: Simon Akam, Alison Leigh Cowan,Michael Wilson and Karen Zraick (Only Mr. Wilson actually wrote the article). These four reporters clearly did their research. They talked to Mr. Zazi's family, friends, as well as acquaintances. They learned about Mr. Zazi's history, his religious beliefs, his past jobs, his travels, and even when people started noticing a change in him. Although there are still many unanswered questions (such as why Mr. Zazi was building bombs, and when the federal authorities started tracking Mr. Zazi) this article is the first article to provide the public with any sort of background information on who Mr. Zazi actually is.

What impresses me the most is the quick turnaround time in which this article was published. Mr. Zazi was only accused last Thursday. That means the reporters only had 3 days to find out as much information as they could on Mr. Zazi. I'm not sure whether I would have even known where to start. The reporters probably had to talk to countless useless people before they found anyone who could give them any worthwhile information. In addition they needed to string together all the pieces of information they discovered in a cohesive article to be published.

In conclusion, I'm very impressed with the amount of time and effort involved in this article and hope that more information regarding Mr. Zazi will be released in the next few days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/nyregion/26profile.html?pagewanted=3&ref=todayspaper

Loved It!

Today's article "South African Children Push For Better Schools" by Celia Dugger was a great read. In the first two sentences Dugger paints a picture that captures the reader's interest. The rest of the article uses just a few key words to give the reader enough information to imagine the events as if they were there while they were occurring. The events of the article all take place in South Africa, a country so far away to most of the readers of The New York Times that Dugger's ability to leave the readers feeling connected to the events is truly a feat.

Dugger not only tells us what is occurring at the moment (children protesting in South Africa), but she also gives us just enough background information for the reader to contextualize what is occurring without boring us with a history lesson. She briefly mentions what happened in the last 15 years since white supremacy rule ended in South Africa. Touching upon the failure of the African National Congress to fix the problems with education and the last time schoolchildren were involved in a march.

Throughout the article Dugger includes details that help the readers visualize the events in South Africa. Such as describing Mr. Achmat's "white straw hat bobbing in a sea of plaids and ginghams." In addition to giving colorful detail Dugger also gives background information on a couple of the marchers. This short and simple background information helps show how relatable the marchers are and gives the reader a stronger sense of connection with what is occurring.

With just a few colorful words, a little bit of history, and a a few short background sentences Dugger has created a beautiful and relatable article. It's no wonder it was featured on the front page of the New York Times!

A Refreshing Perspective

Recently it feels like everything you read in the news just shows the world is going to hell in a hand-basket. The Taliban is growing more intelligent, the UN talks haven't made significant progress, healthcare reform debates are using scare tactics and flashy media stunts instead of intelligent debate, we still don't have a military strategy in Afganistan, and that's just the beginning! So when I finally stumbled upon David Brown's article "AIDS Vaccine Experiment Yields Unanticipated Results" it felt as though it was the only positive thing going on in the world right now.

According to the article an experiment in Thailand called the "Thai trial" yielded the first positive results for an AIDS vaccine. Don't jump for joy just yet though- not only has most of the data from the study not been released yet, but "it is unlikely that any country would consider it effective enough to be used as a public health measure against HIV."

Still, even with this wet blanket, Brown manages to show the positives of this research, without using any fluffy terminology or giving the readers false hope. He mentions that the research has shown that a vaccine is possible. In addition, he shows the reader that by using the information found from this study, scientist are able to gather a great deal of information about what is going on in the immune system when a person has some protection from HIV. However, Brown then deftly presents the negative aspects of the Thai trial showing that researchers are still skeptical about drawing conclusions from the study when the results have not yet been released.

All in all, I think Brown does a good job of not only showing the significance of this study, but also giving the reader perspective on what this truly means for the future of AIDS. While this vaccine may not be the answer, at least we know that it wasn't a total waste of time and resources and that there is some hope to finding a cure in the future.

Article link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092400183.html?hpid=topnews

Good Information, Bad Delivery

Yesterday the law banning flavored cigarettes officially went into effect. The law was passed in the hopes that by banning flavored cigarettes, a product used mainly by teenagers, fewer teens would become addicted to smoking. In Gardiner Harris's article "Flavors Banned From Cigarettes to Deter Youths" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/health/policy/23fda.html?ref=todayspaper) Harris explains why the FDA decided a ban on flavored cigarettes is necessary and where the FDA got the power to regulate tobacco products. In addition, he covers details missing from the legislation and the confusion that has arisen as a result. On top of that, he then delves into the effect of the ban on stores that sell cigarettes. All this, in an article that can't be more than 1,000 words.

Of course one of the difficulties that comes with reporting is fitting all the information into the small square of column space alloted for you in tomorrows paper. I imagine most (good) reporters do pages and pages of research before they write what ends up being a very short article, so deciding what information stays and what has to go is a very onerous task. However, while Harris has conducted plenty of research and gathered a plethora of information, his article overloads the reader with too many different angles on the same issue. As a result parts of his article seem choppy and even a little random. For example, in the last two paragraphs Harris briefly mentions Brian Mullholland, the general manager of Georgetown Tobacco, and how he has been educating consumers of flavored cigarettes on what to switch to. The rest of the article has no mention of the struggle of either the consumer or managers of stores that sell tobacco and instead focuses on the confusion between the agency and tobacco companies regarding what qualifies as a cigarette.

Overall, while this article gives the reader a lot of relevant information concerning the ban on flavored cigarettes, it seems choppy and often randomly pieced together.