By Kelsey Lund
The Star Tribune's story about the Minnesota Senate passing an alternative teacher licensing bill contained two source attributions.
The two sources were said to have opposite opinions of the bill, which made the article seem balanced and unbiased.
The first source attributed was the Education Minnesota teacher's union. Unnamed union officials were paraphrased and quoted in the story. The attributions were always set up in front of the quote.
The next source was Sen. Terri Bonoff. She was first introduced as a senator from Minnetonka who supported the bill. In later paragraphs she was quoted. The attributions for Bonoff were placed after the quote or in between two quotes.
The attributions to both the union and Bonoff were scattered throughout the story. The union was attributed in the beginning, but was also attributed and quoted in the last line of the story. Bonoff's words took up a majority of the middle section of the story.
I thought the attributions were clear and well placed. The writer set up his attributions in the front, middle and end of quotes, integrating the attributions into the text for a smooth read. I found it interesting that the writer used words such as "stressed" and "cited" in addition to "said" when attributing.