The reporter took a traditional route in the layout of the story. The lead gives the general idea of the speech, and the second paragraph has a direct quote that supports the lead, and tells the reader where and when the speech happened. The story alternates between paraphrase, quotes, and background info.The article includes photos and video.
The reporter really tried to capture the tone of Michelle's speech. One way she does this is by using sentences such as "the point was clear as she weaved a tapestry of their early years together..." and "...to that end, the first lady painted a portrait of a leader who knows first-hand the struggles of everyday Americans". The reporter writes in a flowery and sometimes cliché way ("paints a portrait..." is used more than once).
The reporter goes beyond the event by including additional information not directly pertaining to the speech. She uses the background information to support the main ideas of the speech. One part of the article says, "Malia and Sasha, are also expected to join them on stage during the convention's closing night, leaving voters with fresh images of the photogenic family."
There are some comments that I think are unnecessary. They do help support Michelle's agenda and the feelings the speech is trying to evoke, but some author-comments also start to feel biased. For example, "Mrs. Obama never mentioned the president's Republican challenger, who grew up in a world of privilege and wealth." If Michelle didn't mention it, then why should the article? There are a lot of distracting details, and this one felt particularly snide.