In this article, the reporter used computer skills necessary to post links to other information explaining the story. The story was about an Associate Press investigation about foreign students paying recruiters to help find employment. The investigation was based on interviews and documents. The reporter posted a link to other stories and related information. They would need to be able how to know how to post links, find various forms of information for one type of story for this to be possible.
Recently in Analysis Category
In a story about crime in Mexico, I asked a student named Alex, who is half Mexican, if he think that portrays a bad image on the Mexican culture. He said he doesn't believe so, particularly because Mexicans are not targeted heavily on the crime issue on America. He also said it is in Mexico, and there are Americans who commit crime in America, so it happens everywhere in every culture and country. He also said since it involved the U.N. and drugs that it made it a bigger story than it would normally have been.
In a story by the Star Tribune about the power outages, accidents, and cars towed in relation to the Saturday snowstorm, the reporter uses numbers in a variety of ways. One, to tell how many people are left without power. Two, how many people were working to fix the issue. Three, how many cars were impounded. And finally, how many inches of snow there were.
I didn't think the numbers were overwhelming because they got to the point and told the reader the news. There were not any unnecessary numbers used.
The sources of these numbers would be from the tow truck companies, meteorologists, and listings from the energy companies to find out how many people were left without energy.
In commentator Charles McDowell's obituary by Ashley Southall from the New York Times, the sources used by the reporter were McDowell's wife, a film he had appeared in, documentaries, and a statement by John Corry. This lead is standard stating who he was with his age as a separate sentence (and the last of the lead), which works. This obituary differs from a resume in the way it states what made him famous, not everything he did. Maybe not "famous", but definitely his most noticed work.
Mark Dayton made a commitment to honor Minnesota's outdoor traditions and protect natural resources in his press release October 14.
Reporter Dennis Anderson from the Star Tribune used Dayton's release to write his story. Anderson used partial quotes from the release. He also used most of the information Dayton provided.
Anderson also tied in information from other outlets, and quotes from other sources.
WCCO.com and Fox9.com both covered the story on the Lakeland teen deaths, but WCCO had links to click on the news coverage of it, suicide prevention links, and they also had the students' pictures. Fox9.com just had the story and the students' pictures. They didn't include a broadcast link with the story. Fox9 did have other links throughout the story for 'Humphries Park' and 'text messages'. Fox9 also included stories one might be interested that relate to that particular story beneath the Lakeland story. They both had ways to contact the network about the story whether it be emails or comment boxes. WCCO's story is a lot longer and gives more detail from different types of sources such as comments from family members and the sheriff's office. It also gives the visitation and funeral information. WCCO also includes ways to help someone who may be at risk for suicide and ways to prevent it. Fox9 just gives the basic story.
The leads in the news story about a Fox 5 New York reporter sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl are relatively the same. In the first story, the story just notes that a website reported the incident, but the second story lead says "authorities revealed." To me, this means that the reporter went and did investigative work and it shows right away in the story. The news tells us what happened, but in the second story it gives a little more detail, noting that the victim had a close relationship with the reporter. The second-day story does not appear to be a response to a competing news organization.
In a Pioneer Press story about a Cottage Grove woman who called Mothers Against Drunk Driving after she got in an accident as a result of her intoxication, the reporter decides to really just open and close with the title of the story. The title makes a reader think that it will be about this woman and her accident, but it really is all about MADD and what they do. The reporter introduces what the driver did and how it affected her, but then it talks about what MADD does to crashed cars and the displays they have and where they are to open other peoples' eyes about the issue. The reporter also has a header for a different section/topic of the story, which I think helps so that the reader doesn't feel that they are reading on and on, and it helps set up new information and the reader realizes that. It then closes with more emotional quotes of people who this has happened to and the initial Cottage Grove woman's quote. I think this is an effective, informational story, but I almost felt that there wasn't enough about the Cottage Grove woman to make it "make sense" almost. I feel that with the information the story did provide, it was set up effectively and easily readable with useful information.
In an article by the Pioneer Press about a rollover accident in Hampton, the reporter mainly just used the State Patrol for her sources. There was also one attribution credited to the report she was using to get information. The story was pretty small, so the attribution were all close together but also went throughout the entire story. The reporter sets up the attribution by writing the information she gathered and then says the source with said/reported/etc. after she credits the source. I think that her attribution were effective but more information could have been gathered, and by other sources, to make her story have "more to it."
In a story by the Pioneer Press about bomb charges being dropped to a teenage boy, I felt the lead worked out for the type of story that it was. The story was hard news, but it was a follow-up of a previous story that had been surfaced already.
The lead had the who, what, and where included, and I felt it also left enough out that it made people want to continue to read the story (even though the story itself is interesting enough without the perfect lead). This lead detailed the 'what' in the lead, which I think was a good idea because people who may have not heard the earlier story would not have known enough to want to read on. The who was fairly general, but I think, and from what we learned in class, that it was not necessary to specifically say the individuals involved in the lead. Ultimately, I felt that all of the information in the lead was necessary, enough, interesting and appropriate.