Assignment
Coverage by of the news is not carried out by any monolithic organization that gets to decide what is, and is not, the correct way to report the news. Today perhaps more than ever, the editorial or opinion piece of the news is more apparent and widespread than it had been in the decades before cable news, 24-hour-news cycles, and the rise of the Internet as a news source. This does not necessarily mean that the news has become any less impartial, simply that news organizations are more conscious of markets and demographics, the people they are trying to attract, than ever before.
For your assignment this week, find two articles that address the same issue produced by two different news sources (this cannot be the same AP story published by different sources). In 1-2 pages, provide a summary of what message each writer is trying to get across, and provide a brief compare and contrast analysis of the two pieces. Explain which piece you feel is more effective and why. Be sure to include links for each article in your assignment.
Requirements
Some questions to consider
Is it clear? When you read an article, is it clear what is the thesis or topic is being reported? Does the title of the article accurately reflect the story or opinion reported?
How accurate is the reporting? Are the facts being reported accurate, or is obviously incorrect information present? Fact checking is less and less prevalent. With news blogs this happens for a variety of reasons, including limited or no staff, intentional slanting of the report, and amateurish of the bloggers reporting skills. This happens in professional and large news agencies less frequently as well, though more often this is because of understaffing or a desire to break a big story before other agencies rather than intentional deception.
Is the reporting and language precise? How well written is the article? Is the right language being used in the right places? How specific are the facts and events being reported? Are the details being provided, or is everything reported in broad generalities?
How relevant are the facts and ideas being used to backup the report? Are the people interviewed knowledgeable and/or close to the situation, or do they seem random or unnecessarily distant? Do the statistics offered directly relate to the situation, or do they seem distant or off the point?
How in-depth does the report go into the situation? Are they searching for all of the relevant details and comments, or are they satisfied to take the local authority's word for it?
Are outside sources or opinions considered? Is the report offered one-sided, or has it taken into consideration several perspectives to ensure the whole story is being told?
Is the report logically constructed? Does the conclusion follow from the facts and evidence presented? Is the thesis supported by the supporting evidence and conclusion?