Jesse Ferguson
In my opinion, a “good story” should be easy to pick, because that is just what newspapers intend to do, report good stories.
I had a difficult time finding stories that did not abide by the basic guidelines; whether it be unspecified or improper sources; or stories that did not answer the “five Ws” (what, where, who, when, why, and sometimes how). Unquestionably, the improper sourcing will be easier to find than uninformative stories, I believe, because of a few things that prevent uninformative stories from happening: one, these are professional writers that probably have written a few stories in their life. It is their job to make sure the sources are not incorrectly supplied in the first place; and two, editors are not new at this either. It is their job to make sure that stories come without these errors, therefore he or she will not allow there to be errors in their paper. For these, errors are hereby discrete.
(However, sometimes it is intentional that not the whole story is told. Intentionally leaving out selected these words is more intriguing, as it is a direct result of intention to spin a story. Spin is utilized to cast a different light on the story.)
Also, it is important to look at the quality of sources. Is the source credible, or is “the source” just the bum on the street corner talking a bunch of trash, rambling to anyone willing to pretend to listen? How many different sources does the author use? It is important to make sure that the writer did not use a possible misquote; or either the writer or the quoted person had an off moment, and did not really mean what they said.
Journalism is supposed to complete the primary questions of what, where, who, when, how, and most importantly, why for the reader. These selected words encompass any article. These are answered so the reader has no difficulty in understanding the story. They are what allow the story to read and make sense. This also works to narrow the issues. However problems occur when one or more of these keywords are left out of the article, whether it be intentional or inadvertent. Inadvertent comes from or human errors, which do happen; or it could be just bad journalism.
In my opinion, the little blurbs on the side of the paper, like the ones in the sports section, are particularly useless because they are so uninformative. The story needs the “five ws” answered; and usually the quicker they are answered, the better. Probably the first paragraph is a good spot for this, or directly following the lead, because you want to catch the reader’s questions just as they are wondering them. Writing is funny like that, you kind of have to stay one or two steps ahead of the reader, or they will just stop reading it.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/071028/n102832A.html
I think this article is not so good, just because it does not state the relevance of it to us, Canadian readers.
“Stephen Harper is hoping to forge a political as well as a personal friendship with the Dalai Lama this week…” Do they care to explain what if he doesn’t? Any repercussions? What exactly would that mean as repercussions for us Canadians? We would like to know the potential results. If this is such a big thing, then explain why.
If this is the topic, ‘how Harper will meet with the Dalai Lama,’ then it gets too off topic, way too deep into how the meeting went with George W. Bush. This story is two-in-one, and is not clear-cut.
It probably should have started addressing the five-W’s. What, Who, When are all supplied, but—with exception to which—the main question of why is just not answered for us in the nick of time necessary to keep the reader involved. Finally, at the eight paragraph of the release, we are told why this may make any relevance to us Canadians.
The hook or “lead” of this story is good, for it in fact comes a bit of a shock that the Dalai Lama “loves him as a human being,” “him” being President George Bush, and that Prime Minister Harper can actually learn from how Bush dealt with him is a bit shocking.
I think this story could have used some shifting around. The lead is appropriate and effective, but following it should have come why it is a goal that Harper makes a good impression on the Dalai Lama. Bush made a good impression and how he did so should be considered secondary to the main topic.
The story made the news because the Dalai Lama had already met with Bush. However, then they should have separated it into sub-stories with headings. Or at the least, they could have separated it up a bit. Like so:
____
The Dalai Lama had this to say about the man he met Sunday: "I love him, really, as a human being. Very nice man.”
Who could he be speaking of?
Stephen Harper is hoping to forge a similar political as well as a personal friendship with the Dalai Lama this week. He may want to consider the example of none other than President George W. Bush.
That is just who the Dalai Lama was referring to when he said “I love him.”
Harper is hoping to begin a good relationship with him for a few reasons. The domestic controversy over Harper's own war-fighting policies in
No comments:
Post a Comment