Lettieri_News

I read an article from the star trib, that was about Petters and the Southwest Airlines...It seemed to me that the article told more of a story. I could see it happening in anyones home. The situation was described as if you were there. "Running down the stairs, my wife looking tierd..." It seems as if the story i read had more of a connection with its readers than some basic facts about an item or something that took place. The article started with a short blurb, and set the story up for you. Then the title was presented and then the lead. It seemed different than most other news stories i have read.
Another article that i read was on the mpr website and it wasn't formated like the star tribue website. It didn't start off with an informational paragrapht before the lead and the title. This article said the title and then the lead and then it continued on. It seemed to look similar to other news articles i have read.

Posted by letti002 at 5:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Obviously the opinion sections use "we" and "our" and more opinionated phrases. They don't have attributions, at least not the three i read, STR NYT and PIONPR. Not many quotes from outside sources, the person seems to be just stating the facts with a twist of their opinion.
Talks to the readers as if its a coversation, if you don't know how to vote then listen up!...something along those lines
Could have a question and answer format...You might not know who to vote for, right? Well most people don't quite yet. But if your stuck...
"If you don’t know any experienced appellate lawyers, then follow this two-step process:"-star tribune, and it goes on to list different steps.

Posted by letti002 at 6:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I looked at New York Times, MPR and Startribue...They were all a little bit different. I don't know if i wasn't looking in the right places but i had to hunt around to find some slide shows because i didn't see that many. I found one on Sartrib that i liked called New voices, new votes. it had audio which i liked. It had that peoples names that were speaking as well as their age. It was nice not haveing to read while trying to look at what the slide show was presenting. With the audio you could just enjoy the pictures. Secondly i looked at mpr, which showed the 2008 olympics. The pictures were very vivid and the slide show was well done. It didn't have audio but it had descriptions and dates of what was going on in the picture. Thirdly i looked at the NY times and they didn't have audio or description in the slide show i viewd. I felt uninformed and i didn't like it as much as the other three slideshows.

Posted by letti002 at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Star Tribune
The article that was done on the 3rd of Oct. Reading it made me feel like the debate was more layed back. I didn't get to watch it, but it sounded like Palin was trying to crack some jokes, to ease up the tension between the two candidates. For example, the article said that she asked Biden if she could call him Joe. Otherwise it said that Biden tried using his fire on McCain more so than using it on Palin.
Also, it made Palin look good...saying she did better speaking in this debate than she has on other interviews
MPR
Reading MPR, it sounded like the debate was more heated...It says that Palin stood her ground while being scrutnized by the "experienced" Biden. It mentions that Palin's polls have been dropping as people question her readiness. As well as the star tribune, it was mentioned that Palin was using some laid back not promising language. For example like betchya, and gonna rather... People question this

Posted by letti002 at 5:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)