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.