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.