The 2000 case of Bush vs. Gore was the Supreme Court case to decide the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. More specific what the outcome would be in the state of Florida. It was between Governor George Bush and Vice president Al Gore. It ended up in the hands of the Supreme Court after each of the two party's fighting for the White House had both requested petitions to have the votes recounted more then once. The whole event was quite chaotic and finished when the Supreme Court step in when the recounts were going on again and stopped them from finishing stating that the recount would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So the case went to Florida's Supreme Court, which could do nothing but throw the case out declaring George Bush the winner.
It is still relevant today because the Supreme Court made the pivotal decision that created the outcome of the election. I think the only thing that it has hurt with democracy is that it shows that a major decision like the presidency can be taken out of the hands of the people and decided by the courts. If anything it creates question on whether we are truly in charge of our country and raises questions about the importance of voting.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Postman's Technology
Out of all the new video game consoles the Nintendo Wii is the most innovative, while at the same time appealing to a mass audience that doesn't usually play video games. It is the little console that is dominating the market even with outdated graphics and the lack of games geared towards the hard core gamers. I personally would take my 360 over a Wii any day, but for my analysis using Postman's questions, I figured I would choose the piece of technology that has changed the way video games are to be played in the future.
It is hard to say if there is a problem that the Nintendo Wii is solving. If anything I would say that the Wii is pushing us closer to a day when we will be fully integrated into a game. For today I would say that a big part of the Wii is the physical activity the system is able to create with some of it's games. Especially with new peripherals like the Wii balance board and games like Wii fit, it seems that Nintendo is gunning for a mix of gaming with working out. So in a way I suppose that it is solving the problem of gamers siting around all day without getting any exercise. I have also heard that nursing homes and physical therapy centers also use the Wii for people that are not able to do strenuous workouts due to a handicap. There are plenty of easy stress free games that can get people up on their feet doing easy movements that can give them some type of an exercise.
I think for the most part it is everybody's problem who spends more than five hours a day siting playing video games. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but if that's all you ever do there is a good chance that your not getting any exercise. Like I stated before the Wii does a good job of getting you up and getting a small workout.
There are always many types of problems that can come from new technology. I would say the main problem that seems to occur with almost all types of technology is the removal of human contact that has been replaced by the interaction through technology. The one good thing about the Wii however is that it is much more fun when you are playing with other people rather than playing it by yourself. However there can be an issue if you are using the Wii as your only means for getting exercise. Although it is a good way to have fun while burning some calories I don't feel that the Wii is an adequate substitution for going to the gym or getting outside and going for a run or a walk.
The only ones that are making any economic power or success is Nintendo. I think they are the only ones to benefit from this financially. I would say some of the game companies are also making some money, but not as much as the make while creating games for the 360 or PS3. The only games that seem to have any type of critical and financial success are the games that Nintendo creates themselves. I think this is due to the fact that the majority of Wii owners are not hard core gamers. So when a game comes out on the Wii that is for the hard core gamers like "Mad World," it doesn't do well financially.
I don't think that the Wii could bring any changes to language. It is first and foremost a gaming device and not a communication device. It has the basic stuff like e-mail and other small things like that, but nothing that people would use to communicate with other people that would satisfy them. And I don't think it has a camera that can be purchased as an extra like the 360 has, so there is no worry of the Wii being used to talk and look at people who are not in the same room. Although there are already plenty of camera devices embedded into many other types of technology like computers and cell phones that it wouldn't matter if it had one.
I would like to know what Postman would say about the Wii, but I can guess that he is not a big fan of video games in general. Just a hunch I have.
It is hard to say if there is a problem that the Nintendo Wii is solving. If anything I would say that the Wii is pushing us closer to a day when we will be fully integrated into a game. For today I would say that a big part of the Wii is the physical activity the system is able to create with some of it's games. Especially with new peripherals like the Wii balance board and games like Wii fit, it seems that Nintendo is gunning for a mix of gaming with working out. So in a way I suppose that it is solving the problem of gamers siting around all day without getting any exercise. I have also heard that nursing homes and physical therapy centers also use the Wii for people that are not able to do strenuous workouts due to a handicap. There are plenty of easy stress free games that can get people up on their feet doing easy movements that can give them some type of an exercise.
I think for the most part it is everybody's problem who spends more than five hours a day siting playing video games. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but if that's all you ever do there is a good chance that your not getting any exercise. Like I stated before the Wii does a good job of getting you up and getting a small workout.
There are always many types of problems that can come from new technology. I would say the main problem that seems to occur with almost all types of technology is the removal of human contact that has been replaced by the interaction through technology. The one good thing about the Wii however is that it is much more fun when you are playing with other people rather than playing it by yourself. However there can be an issue if you are using the Wii as your only means for getting exercise. Although it is a good way to have fun while burning some calories I don't feel that the Wii is an adequate substitution for going to the gym or getting outside and going for a run or a walk.
The only ones that are making any economic power or success is Nintendo. I think they are the only ones to benefit from this financially. I would say some of the game companies are also making some money, but not as much as the make while creating games for the 360 or PS3. The only games that seem to have any type of critical and financial success are the games that Nintendo creates themselves. I think this is due to the fact that the majority of Wii owners are not hard core gamers. So when a game comes out on the Wii that is for the hard core gamers like "Mad World," it doesn't do well financially.
I don't think that the Wii could bring any changes to language. It is first and foremost a gaming device and not a communication device. It has the basic stuff like e-mail and other small things like that, but nothing that people would use to communicate with other people that would satisfy them. And I don't think it has a camera that can be purchased as an extra like the 360 has, so there is no worry of the Wii being used to talk and look at people who are not in the same room. Although there are already plenty of camera devices embedded into many other types of technology like computers and cell phones that it wouldn't matter if it had one.
I would like to know what Postman would say about the Wii, but I can guess that he is not a big fan of video games in general. Just a hunch I have.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Feature Article Analysis
The feature that I chose was "Is the 'Wild Things' Movie Too Scary for Kids," written by Andrew Romano. The story is set up more like an essay rather then a news story, addressing a particular question rather than reporting on a news event. Unlike traditional news stories we don't get the main point of the piece at the beginning of Romano's article. It's not until the end of the second paragraph and the beginning of the third that we find out what Ramon is writing about. There is really no lead paragraph, instead Romano starts his story off by telling about Spike Jonze the director of the film and his interaction with a stranger. Romano uses this story which he took from an interview that Jonze did with Newsweek earlier to set up the idea of the film being too controversial or more importantly too difficult for children to understand. Romano eases the reader into the topic by using Jonze's story with the stranger, which is unlike a regular news story that want's to get right to the point in the first sentence. It's more laid back and it's trying to come to an answer rather than trying to preach the truth. One of the other bigger differences between this story and a regular news story is that Romano quotes from other written sources rather than from a source he interviewed himself. He takes quotes from interviews that people have given to Newsweek, quotes from journals and other articles that people have written, and he even takes a quote from a 1963 review of the "Where the Wild Things Are" book. This is where it seems to be more like an essay because he takes ideas from other people to help get his own point across to the reader. Romano has the entire article written out like an essay with a beginning paragraph, a body, and a closing paragraph to end the story. Regular news stories usually have an opening and a middle but rarely does it have a concluding paragraph that leaves the reader thinking about the main idea of the story they just read, and Romano's last paragraph does just that.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Response to Newspaper Bailout
Not being a big fan of any of the other bailouts that the government has done already, I have to say I'm not too sure if bailing out print media is the best idea right now if ever. I do think that print media is important, but the issue I have with Nichols and McChesney, and the argument for a bailout for print media in general, is the fact that they act like there will be no news reported at all if newsprint dies out. Personally I don't feel that the newsprint media has any basis of being superior to the other forms of media. The only thing it has going for it is that it has been around longer then any other type of news outlet. With so many more important issues that the Government is being faced with right now, like health care reform, I think the future of newsprint media should be at the bottom of their list of concerns.
I think that the two authors of this article have made good arguments towards why the newspaper industry deserve a bailout, but I think that the only argument that is worth thinking about is the possibility that 50,000 reporters would be without jobs if the industry crashed. But I would have to say that there have been that many jobs and more that have been lost in the past months. I don't feel that the newspaper business is big enough to stabilize our economy, and if it were to crash losing all those jobs it would be no different then all of the other industries that have been losing the same amount of jobs. We need to fix the economy first and foremost and I don't see bailing out the newspapers would fix our economic problems that we now face.
They bring up another good point that a lot of television news outlets focus on less important things like celebrity life, but I would argue that the paper still reports on these types of stories, just not as much. A few times in the article it seems to be implying that the new media is trying to destroy the old media. There seems to be a big comparison and blame put on news that is distributed online. My major question is what is the difference of reading a story in a newspaper and reading the same story online? The story is still the same it is only being presented to us in a different format.
The idea that a bailout could even save the newspaper is unknown. We think that because the car industry is doing a little bit better then it was, that must mean that the bailout worked. Same goes for the banks and the housing market, but what happens if these systems go back down to they way they were. We are just assuming that they are working, but only time will tell. What if we decided to throw sixty billion dollars into a bailout over the next three years to save the newspaper and nothing happens, all the papers still go out of business. I think we were too fast to jump into the previous bailouts without taking the time to decide if it would work over time or if it was just enough of a hit to limp us on for another few years. And I think it would be stupid for the government to just rush in and bailout something else. We need a permanent solution that will created sustainable jobs not a crutch to get us by and just dump it on the next generation. Maybe it will work and we will have newspapers for 1oo more years, but with the way technology is getting smaller and more complex with what it can access how much longer can papers last. This problem started before the rescission and I think we would be having the same problem even if our economy was booming at it's highest.
The newspaper has been in trouble for a long time and I think that it is time to just let it go. I think the two authors have put their hearts into this campaign to try and save the paper, but that may be what is hurting them the most. I think the argument comes more from a sense of nostalgia that the two authors wished the papers could return to. If there should be any type of government funding it should be put into a way to make online news media stronger. I think that the new media can do the same thing that the old has been able to do for so long, but I think it can become something greater and move us ahead in our news reporting capability. Whatever happens in the next couple of years there will always be those out there dedicated to finding the truth and reporting on it, no matter what form they use to report it.
I think that the two authors of this article have made good arguments towards why the newspaper industry deserve a bailout, but I think that the only argument that is worth thinking about is the possibility that 50,000 reporters would be without jobs if the industry crashed. But I would have to say that there have been that many jobs and more that have been lost in the past months. I don't feel that the newspaper business is big enough to stabilize our economy, and if it were to crash losing all those jobs it would be no different then all of the other industries that have been losing the same amount of jobs. We need to fix the economy first and foremost and I don't see bailing out the newspapers would fix our economic problems that we now face.
They bring up another good point that a lot of television news outlets focus on less important things like celebrity life, but I would argue that the paper still reports on these types of stories, just not as much. A few times in the article it seems to be implying that the new media is trying to destroy the old media. There seems to be a big comparison and blame put on news that is distributed online. My major question is what is the difference of reading a story in a newspaper and reading the same story online? The story is still the same it is only being presented to us in a different format.
The idea that a bailout could even save the newspaper is unknown. We think that because the car industry is doing a little bit better then it was, that must mean that the bailout worked. Same goes for the banks and the housing market, but what happens if these systems go back down to they way they were. We are just assuming that they are working, but only time will tell. What if we decided to throw sixty billion dollars into a bailout over the next three years to save the newspaper and nothing happens, all the papers still go out of business. I think we were too fast to jump into the previous bailouts without taking the time to decide if it would work over time or if it was just enough of a hit to limp us on for another few years. And I think it would be stupid for the government to just rush in and bailout something else. We need a permanent solution that will created sustainable jobs not a crutch to get us by and just dump it on the next generation. Maybe it will work and we will have newspapers for 1oo more years, but with the way technology is getting smaller and more complex with what it can access how much longer can papers last. This problem started before the rescission and I think we would be having the same problem even if our economy was booming at it's highest.
The newspaper has been in trouble for a long time and I think that it is time to just let it go. I think the two authors have put their hearts into this campaign to try and save the paper, but that may be what is hurting them the most. I think the argument comes more from a sense of nostalgia that the two authors wished the papers could return to. If there should be any type of government funding it should be put into a way to make online news media stronger. I think that the new media can do the same thing that the old has been able to do for so long, but I think it can become something greater and move us ahead in our news reporting capability. Whatever happens in the next couple of years there will always be those out there dedicated to finding the truth and reporting on it, no matter what form they use to report it.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Silent Broadcast
So for the silent part of the assignment I decided to watch The Glen Beck show on FOX. I'm not a big fan of FOX in general, but Glen Beck is one of the few on the station that I will listen to. If for nothing more he can be pretty entertaining with his wacky personality and warnings of the end of America. So I wondered how his program would be without any sound at all.
I have to say that even with the sound off Glen Beck was still pretty entertaining, if not more so than usually. I was watching him do his crazy faces he does and had no idea why he was doing them. He is very much an actor during his broadcast and this came out more with the sound off. But with the sound off I couldn't really tell what he was reporting on. The first story or bit of news that he was talking about had something to do with the Department of Treasury, because he had this big TV screen behind him and on it was this document that had the Department of Treasury at the top of it. He seemed to be talking about this document because he kept turning around pointing at it. I didn't read what it was about, but there were a few sentences that had been blacked out, which is sometimes on documents that the Government releases to the public. I don't know what it was about, but it took up about half the show. There were also a bunch of clips brought up of people from congress that were dated almost half a year ago and they also showed a clip of President Obama speaking back in June.
I thought that I would be able to read his lips to understand what was going on but Glen Beck talks too fast that I couldn't keep up. The only thing I was able to get out was "Congress doesn't matter anymore." If you have ever watch his show or listened to him on the radio, you would find that this attitude towards the Government is quite common from Beck. After the first story it seemed like Beck was turning to something else when he started to talk about something called re-founders. He started to show pictures of the Constitution and pictures of the founding fathers. Then pictures of the constitution was being shown with pictures and video of congress members of today. With some of the pictures there would be a quote that the person had said about the constitution like how it is suppose to grow with the people. There were many other quotes like that and it seemed to me that the show was going after the idea that some members of congress are trying to imply the ability to change the constitution. That's just what I took from it, but if you have watched any conservative news outlets you will hear every now and again the idea of the left wing attempt to change the constitution for there own gains. But this is the same sort of threat that you would hear from the liberal media like MSNBC, when Bush was still president.
So after Glen Beck was done I decided to just stay on FOX and do the just listening portion of the assignment. I have no idea what the show was called it might have been FOX and Friends, but don't hold me to it. Anyway I found that just listening to the news program was a lot easier then watching it without the sound. I had no issue trying to figure out was going on, the only problem that I had was that I couldn't see what they were reporting on. The first story was about Obama switching the missile defense over in Europe from a land setup to a mobile one. I couldn't see the missiles being shot off, but I could still hear them. They then went to talk about the possibility of Iran having a Nuke, the banned funding of Acorn by the Government, praying in school and a few other stories. However the most important thing is that I had no trouble following along with what the stories were about. I think the only thing that it proves is that we don't get the news from the visuals. They are important and they can add to a news story, but anyone can get the important facts from words alone. Look at the radio, a big chunk of the radio belongs to 24 hour news stations or at least stations that gives news for the most of the day. All the stories that we get are told to us, we don't get to see anything from video, it all comes from the host/reporter. I actually prefer the radio news over television news. There are no distractions like holograms or any other gimmick CNN comes up with, just the news. That's all I really want out of news outlets,no gimmicks, no news anchors that just want to be loud and get attention, no BS what so ever, just the news.
I have to say that even with the sound off Glen Beck was still pretty entertaining, if not more so than usually. I was watching him do his crazy faces he does and had no idea why he was doing them. He is very much an actor during his broadcast and this came out more with the sound off. But with the sound off I couldn't really tell what he was reporting on. The first story or bit of news that he was talking about had something to do with the Department of Treasury, because he had this big TV screen behind him and on it was this document that had the Department of Treasury at the top of it. He seemed to be talking about this document because he kept turning around pointing at it. I didn't read what it was about, but there were a few sentences that had been blacked out, which is sometimes on documents that the Government releases to the public. I don't know what it was about, but it took up about half the show. There were also a bunch of clips brought up of people from congress that were dated almost half a year ago and they also showed a clip of President Obama speaking back in June.
I thought that I would be able to read his lips to understand what was going on but Glen Beck talks too fast that I couldn't keep up. The only thing I was able to get out was "Congress doesn't matter anymore." If you have ever watch his show or listened to him on the radio, you would find that this attitude towards the Government is quite common from Beck. After the first story it seemed like Beck was turning to something else when he started to talk about something called re-founders. He started to show pictures of the Constitution and pictures of the founding fathers. Then pictures of the constitution was being shown with pictures and video of congress members of today. With some of the pictures there would be a quote that the person had said about the constitution like how it is suppose to grow with the people. There were many other quotes like that and it seemed to me that the show was going after the idea that some members of congress are trying to imply the ability to change the constitution. That's just what I took from it, but if you have watched any conservative news outlets you will hear every now and again the idea of the left wing attempt to change the constitution for there own gains. But this is the same sort of threat that you would hear from the liberal media like MSNBC, when Bush was still president.
So after Glen Beck was done I decided to just stay on FOX and do the just listening portion of the assignment. I have no idea what the show was called it might have been FOX and Friends, but don't hold me to it. Anyway I found that just listening to the news program was a lot easier then watching it without the sound. I had no issue trying to figure out was going on, the only problem that I had was that I couldn't see what they were reporting on. The first story was about Obama switching the missile defense over in Europe from a land setup to a mobile one. I couldn't see the missiles being shot off, but I could still hear them. They then went to talk about the possibility of Iran having a Nuke, the banned funding of Acorn by the Government, praying in school and a few other stories. However the most important thing is that I had no trouble following along with what the stories were about. I think the only thing that it proves is that we don't get the news from the visuals. They are important and they can add to a news story, but anyone can get the important facts from words alone. Look at the radio, a big chunk of the radio belongs to 24 hour news stations or at least stations that gives news for the most of the day. All the stories that we get are told to us, we don't get to see anything from video, it all comes from the host/reporter. I actually prefer the radio news over television news. There are no distractions like holograms or any other gimmick CNN comes up with, just the news. That's all I really want out of news outlets,no gimmicks, no news anchors that just want to be loud and get attention, no BS what so ever, just the news.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Lead Critique
For the most part I feel that Jeff Zeleny's lead in the "New York Times" that starts his article off works quite well on telling the reader what it's about while trying to get us to read more. His lead that he wrote to start his story about "Thousands Rally in Capitol to Protest Big Government" has all the info that we need and covers the five W's of the story. We don't really get a "How" in the lead, but it doesn't really matter if were told how they protested. There's no real set rules or guidelines for protesting so I think that we can all figure out how the people were getting their points a crossed (with a lot of yelling and screaming.)
I wouldn't say that all five W's are as clearly stated as they could be, and perhaps one or two might even be implied, but overall they seem to be there in the lead. The "WHO" of the lead is right at the beginning only a few words in when Zeleny tells us that it is a "sea of protesters" that are the subject of the story. We find out a little farther along in the lead that it is actually the "largest rally against President Obama since he took office." Zeleny doesn't come right out and state the "WHAT" of the story, but since it is about protesters it is sort of implied that they were, well protesting. It wouldn't make sence if they were protesters doing community service, so even though he doesn't tell us directly it is simple enough that since we know the "WHO" that we know the "WHAT." We're told in the second line that it occurred on Saturday on "the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall." So Zeleny gives us the "WHEN" and "WHERE" in the same line of the lead. The "WHY" of the story is also sort of implied, Zeleny writes that the protest was "a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government." He tells us that this protest is sort of the last stand of the summer protests that have been going on with health care and a growing Government, but he doesn't tell us exactly that this protest is about health care. If you keep reading after the lead, you actually find out that the protesters are protesting a lot of things, including gun rights and lower taxes. However the use of the word "broader" in the lead sort of helps to tell us that these protesters were protesting against more then just health care reform.
I think that the lead gives us the right amount of info that the reader will need to figure out what the story is about. It doesn't feel like too much info or not enough, but I think he could be a little more clear on some of the facts of the event. The only thing that maybe I would revise would be to state what exactly the protesters were protesting. However like I stated in the paragraph above, even though it isn't directly stated, Zeleny still gives us the info that tells us that the protesters were protesting for many different issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html?hp
I wouldn't say that all five W's are as clearly stated as they could be, and perhaps one or two might even be implied, but overall they seem to be there in the lead. The "WHO" of the lead is right at the beginning only a few words in when Zeleny tells us that it is a "sea of protesters" that are the subject of the story. We find out a little farther along in the lead that it is actually the "largest rally against President Obama since he took office." Zeleny doesn't come right out and state the "WHAT" of the story, but since it is about protesters it is sort of implied that they were, well protesting. It wouldn't make sence if they were protesters doing community service, so even though he doesn't tell us directly it is simple enough that since we know the "WHO" that we know the "WHAT." We're told in the second line that it occurred on Saturday on "the west lawn of the Capitol and spilled onto the National Mall." So Zeleny gives us the "WHEN" and "WHERE" in the same line of the lead. The "WHY" of the story is also sort of implied, Zeleny writes that the protest was "a culmination of a summer-long season of protests that began with opposition to a health care overhaul and grew into a broader dissatisfaction with government." He tells us that this protest is sort of the last stand of the summer protests that have been going on with health care and a growing Government, but he doesn't tell us exactly that this protest is about health care. If you keep reading after the lead, you actually find out that the protesters are protesting a lot of things, including gun rights and lower taxes. However the use of the word "broader" in the lead sort of helps to tell us that these protesters were protesting against more then just health care reform.
I think that the lead gives us the right amount of info that the reader will need to figure out what the story is about. It doesn't feel like too much info or not enough, but I think he could be a little more clear on some of the facts of the event. The only thing that maybe I would revise would be to state what exactly the protesters were protesting. However like I stated in the paragraph above, even though it isn't directly stated, Zeleny still gives us the info that tells us that the protesters were protesting for many different issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/politics/13protestweb.html?hp
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Resume
Arlen J. Faloon
433 York Hall
arlen.faloon@umit.maine.edu
207-867-5309
433 York Hall
arlen.faloon@umit.maine.edu
207-867-5309
OBJECTIVE: Bring to light the stories of the weak and downtrodden.
EXPERIENCE: Staff Writer for The New York Times, Assistant Editor for The Boston Globe, Film Critic for the Chicago Tribune, Sunday Comics writer for The Bangor Daley News, Chief Editor for The Rolling Thunder. Writing consultant for DC and Marvel Comics.
Education: Nokomis Regional High, B.A. in English with a Film and Video Minor at the University of Maine Orono.
Skills: Good Listener, hard working, and won't quit until I lose or until I'm dead.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Accuracy
It's always hard to know how accurate anything really is, especially when dealing with the news. There is sort of this unwritten rule that whatever is labeled as news we assume is accurate and true. So in the article that I read in the Bangor Daily News about the superintendent of RSU 67 changing his mind on allowing his students to watch Obama's speech, I assume that all the quotes and all the info is true, even though I have no proof of this. And I think we all know what assuming can do to a person.
Overall I think that the article I chose is a good example on how an article can be accurate on what it is reporting on. I did not do any extra investigating on any of the quotes that were in the article to verify if they were quoted in the correct context. However the quotes that were used in the article seem to come from those that would have been quoted by other news outlets, other then just the Bangor Daily. Meg Haskell also notes at the end that some of the info came from The Associated Press, so if I wanted to double check any of the quotes used I would start there. Overall the entire article seems to be made up of about 75% from the quotes of those that were interviewed. So the entire article is told to us by those who were involved on both sides using what they said. Haskell even takes an except from the email that started it all. So there is plenty of facts in the article due to all the quotes that are used. Even when Haskell is not using any quotes she still notes where she gets her info, instead of filling in between quotes with her own assumptions on the matter. Like I already stated there is plenty in the article that someone could double check on if they wanted to. I think it is this reason that helps to show the accuracy of the article itself, because when your making things up you don't want to give your readers anything they could use to prove you wrong.
You can read the article yourself here and see how accurate you think it is.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/119515.html
Overall I think that the article I chose is a good example on how an article can be accurate on what it is reporting on. I did not do any extra investigating on any of the quotes that were in the article to verify if they were quoted in the correct context. However the quotes that were used in the article seem to come from those that would have been quoted by other news outlets, other then just the Bangor Daily. Meg Haskell also notes at the end that some of the info came from The Associated Press, so if I wanted to double check any of the quotes used I would start there. Overall the entire article seems to be made up of about 75% from the quotes of those that were interviewed. So the entire article is told to us by those who were involved on both sides using what they said. Haskell even takes an except from the email that started it all. So there is plenty of facts in the article due to all the quotes that are used. Even when Haskell is not using any quotes she still notes where she gets her info, instead of filling in between quotes with her own assumptions on the matter. Like I already stated there is plenty in the article that someone could double check on if they wanted to. I think it is this reason that helps to show the accuracy of the article itself, because when your making things up you don't want to give your readers anything they could use to prove you wrong.
You can read the article yourself here and see how accurate you think it is.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/119515.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)