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.