Gorvin's News

The Charleston-Gazette published a story on how few OSHA inspectors there are to cover the entire state of West Virginia. They presented numbers about the total number of inspections across the state for a given year, the number of citations issued and the total of the fines. They also provided the number of workplace deaths for a given year and compared this to other years.
The reporter would need to know how to use database software in order to keep track of all the statistics. Spreadsheet programs could also be useful in order to analyze and present numbers.

Posted by gorvi004 at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The CNN article is about how Jewish runners are dealing with the Boston Marathon taking place during Passover and how that is disrupting their eating habits as they prepare for the race.
The article does move beyond stereotype. I think Jews are generally viewed as staunchly religious. However, this article moves past that stereotype by providing a broad spectrum of views from Jews. Some are modifying their religious rituals in order to accommodate for the marathon. Others are eating things they would normally not eat in order to adhere to their religious beliefs. Others are ignoring their religion altogether in order to participate in the marathon.
This article uses mainly quotes to provide a sample of views on the subject.

Posted by gorvi004 at 6:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the New York Times article about maltreatment of babies in the United States, the reporter uses numbers to tell how many babies are maltreated each year, how many were killed in maltreatment cases, and how many were maltreated in the first week of their lives.
These figures are important to the article because they relay the extent of maltreatment in the United States.
The reporter did make some of the numbers easy to grasp by expressing them in words instead of numerals and reducing the hard numbers to ratios and fractions (“one of every 43 American babies� and “about a third�).
However, the reporter leaves many hard numbers in the report, saying simply how many cases were reported. This makes the numbers unclear. The reader can only grasp that the number is in the thousands or hundreds, but does not know its context or perspective. The reporter could have also expressed these figures in ratios or fractions to make them clearer.
The source of the numbers is a study done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Posted by gorvi004 at 2:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The New York Times obituary for G. David Low begins with a standard obituary lead. This is effective because few people would know who Low was. Therefore, the straight-forward lead with an immediate identification is necessary.
The only attributed source used in this obituary is Barron Beneski, a spokesman for Orbital Sciences Corporation, the corporation Low was senior vice-president of.
The obituary contains the highlights of Low’s career as an astronaut, including spacewalks he took and missions he worked on.
Because Low was famous only because he was an astronaut, the obituary does not stray to include his accomplishments or interests outside of his field.

Posted by gorvi004 at 6:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Pioneer Press article about the Junior Arthritis Jam at the Mall of America, an event to raise awareness about juvenile arthritis, begins with a profile of 6-year-old Caroline Pranke’s struggle with the disease. It tells how she has trouble on the playground to keep up with the other children and how she calls her disease “arthur.�
The reporter, Liala Helal, uses Pranke to craft a human interest story that also ties in to a local event. This makes the story more accessible and interesting. The fact that the subject is a child who is suffering evokes sympathy from the reader. This makes the story easier to read and pulls the reader to the conclusion of the article.
Helal also includes facts about the number of children living with arthritis in the United States. This gives the readers background information and informs about the scope of the problem.
Helal’s sources are Pranke herself, her mother and the events assistant of the North Central Chapter of the Arthritis Foundation She also uses the philanthropy chair of a University of Minnesota sorority that is providing volunteers and fundraising as a source.

Posted by gorvi004 at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Star Tribune reporter, Steve Brandt, who covered the Minneapolis City Council meeting held Feb. 29 chose to make the council’s rejection of a lighting fee the headline story. This is probably because this occurrence affects more readers than the other stories.
Brandt then summarized other decisions in a sub headline. This sub headline is convenient because it allows readers who may not care about the lighting fee to immediately see other actions that may be important to them.
The lead deals only with the lighting fee and the reporter used bullets to cover the council’s other decisions.
When comparing the agenda with the report, one can see that Brandt chose not to mention that the council approved to commence the bidding process for green roof options for the Target Center or that the council approved an action to begin exploring combining the crime labs for the city of Minneapolis and Hennepin County. This is probably because in these actions, there is nothing that would affect readers. Nothing has been decided yet; only preliminary steps have been taken. Neither of these stories is particularly useful to the Star Tribune audience.
The other stories Brandt decided to include was a resolution to make grocery stores carry certain staple foods and that the fees for having boarded-up buildings tripled. It’s easy to see the impact these two actions could have on readers.
Brandt also included that the city decided to revoke the licenses of 45 rental houses. Here, he added a quote from one of the council members that helps explain why the licenses were revoked. The quote could not have been gotten from the agenda.

Posted by gorvi004 at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first Star Tribune article about the hit and run accident in St. Paul that left a 59-year-old woman dead began with a lead that described the scene shortly after the accident. Not many details were known when the article was written so the lead took more of a story-telling approach, not stating clearly what had happened. The rest of the story focused on a witness who helped the victim. It included extensive quotes from the witness and her thoughts about the accident to bulk up the report. It briefly mentioned that a man, Terrance Oliver, had been arrested in connection with the accident. Because there weren’t many known facts, the story gave accounts from people who did not see the accident about how busy the street is.
The second Star Tribune article gives much more detail about the accident itself and about the arrest of Terrance Oliver. The lead tells why Oliver says he hit the woman (the sun was in his eyes) and summarizes the accident. It is a hard news lead where the lead for the first story was not, probably because the reporter knew more facts at the time of the second writing. The witness who played such a large part in the first writing isn’t mentioned in the second writing because more important information than her thoughts and concerns was discovered.
This story also gives much more detail about the victim, now stating her name as Margaret (Peggy) Prowse and giving her specific injuries. (The first story just said her limbs were mangled, a recount from a witness). We also get specific information on Oliver, that he was driving without a license and that he had many violations for driving without a license in past years. This story also relates that Oliver was not breaking any traffic laws when he hit Prowse. (The first article didn’t make this clear.) Oliver’s previous criminal background is also given, as well as details that led to his arrest.
In the first story, most facts are attributed to the witness. In the second, the facts are attributed to police officials or documents.
In general, the second story gives the why and how. The first story just told the what, when, and where. More details were discovered, and hence, more detail was given in the second writing.
The second story was not a reaction to a report from another news organization.

Posted by gorvi004 at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The BBC’s story about the theft of four paintings from a Zurich museum begins by expressing the impact of the theft. The reporter explains that the robbers took four very valuable paintings and that this theft may be one of the largest in 20 years. This structure immediately tells readers why they should care about this particular story.
The reporter then gives the names of the stolen paintings, answering the question most readers would be asking at this point.
Then, a chronological summary of how the paintings were stolen is given. This comes after the most important facts (the paintings’ names and the impact of the theft) were given. Linking words such as “then� are used to clearly convey the actions of the robbers.
Finally, quotes from the police spokesman and the museum director that support the reporter’s earlier statements are given. This works because the quotes are not essential to the reporting of the story and are therefore put towards the end. They do, however, give life and credibility.
I think putting these quotes more in the beginning (the bulk) of the story would have worked well too. The quote form the museum director could have been put with the names of the paintings. This would have helped relay the impact of the robbery to readers who may not recognize the artists’ names. The quote from the police spokesman, if placed earlier in the story, would have worked in a similar way.
The story ends with background on the museum the paintings were stolen from. This works very well because, while pertinent, this information is not at all essential to the story.

Posted by gorvi004 at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the February 2 Anchorage Daily News article on the missing Japanese balloonist, there are six sources used: the U.S. Coast Guard, the balloonist’s assistant, the balloonist’s wife, a Coast Guard lieutenant, the Japan Balloon Federation and the assistant’s husband.
The majority of the sources are people. However, two institutional sources are used: the Coast Guard and the Japan Balloon Federation.
For the most part, the sources are clustered together. The Coast Guard information is placed at the beginning of the story, with one stray piece of information towards the end. However, this is not confusing because the U.S. Coast Guard is self-explanatory; the reader does not need to remember the name of a person and that person’s role in the story.
The balloonist’s assistant, Chika Edgar is introduced in the third paragraph, amongst information from the Coast Guard. One piece of information from the assistant, Chika Edgar, is used here before there is a quote from the balloonist’s wife. This is the only time that the wife is mentioned.
The next time the assistant is used is six paragraphs later. However, the reporter makes it easy for the reader to follow because he uses an appositive to explain again that Edgar is the assistant.
There is, however, information from the assistant that seems to be randomly added towards the end of the story. This part is confusing because it simply attributes as “she said.� It took a bit of searching and thinking to figure out who “she� really is. And I still feel like there is some doubt. The assistant’s name should have been used to clarify.
Most of the information from the Coast Guard lieutenant is clustered together and is clear. However, like the assistant, there is one stray piece of information from the lieutenant towards the end of the story that could have been clearer. The use of an appositive again would have worked well.
The Japan Balloon Federation is referenced only once, as is the assistant’s husband. Both attributions are clear and easy to follow.

Posted by gorvi004 at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Star Tribune report on the Baltimore boy who murdered his family begins with a hard-news summary lead. The lead summarizes what the boy did (killed his family) and what he did after the murder (spent time with friends, and then called 911). The lead also identifies where the murder happened in the dateline. The lead does not include why the boy would murder his family. However, the lead does specify that the victims were shot. Also specific is the age of the boy because of its importance to the story.
The lead is a delayed identification lead. The reporter generalized the identities of the boy and his family in the lead because most people would not recognize their names.
The names are then given in the second and third paragraphs.

Posted by gorvi004 at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)