Recently in analysis Category

The article from Reuters about the Titanic steering mistake has only one source in it. Lousie Patten, the woman who revealed the secret of a steering error as the reason the ship hit an iceberg, is mentioned in almost every paragraph.

She is quoted directly once, while the rest of the interview was describe indirectly or paraphrased.

It is explained where she got her information, but the article is written in such a way that the what that she reveals isn't taken as the truth or a lie. It is written objectively to give the reader the means to think for themselves.

The attributions to Patten are very well laid out. It's easy to follow and effectively used.

The lead started off by saying that a van blew a tire before going onto the more important detail of how many people in the accident were killed. The Star Tribune created a lead sending me into the idea that the blown tire was the most interesting and important fact of the van crash when how the people were affected rated higher on my radar. The lead did include the who: people from the church, the what: the van flipping over and crashing, the where: the New York State Thruway, the when: on Saturday, and the how: the blown tire, which adds up to a wonderful lead, but the way it was constructed through me for a loop.

The reporter could have meant to do this. Creating a focus on the tire and how that caused the accident is a major part of the story and is entirely responsible for the need for a news story, but as a reader I like to know what happened first before the rest of it comes into play. Overall the lead was very successful, even though I would have liked it to be different.