November 17, 2008

Restaurant Reviews

I reviewed three restaurant reviews, each a funny article, each a pretty horribly negative article and each from a different source. There are so many things I never realized before about restaurant reviews. 1. They are ridiculous. I laughed out loud at least once at each one I read. My jaw dropped at least once for how harsh the writers were in their explanations of the service, atmosphere, or food. 2. The reviewers critique more than just the food; service, drinks, decor, noise, atmosphere, etc. 3. Restaurant reviews seem to be almost unnecessarily long! While reading each article I felt like the writers simply wanted to hear themselves talk..or I guess in this case read their own thoughts and opinions! I am pretty sure any reader could catch the overall theme of the article in the first 2 seconds. With the great length to the article it almost gets annoying...they are somewhat repetitive! But I think it would be fun to be a reviewer!

October 27, 2008


I did not notice a great deal of difference in business pieces vs. any other piece. A few of the key things I did notice were: the story leads did not seem very informative. It was until almost the second or third sentence that the audience was aware of the who, what, when, where, and how that the story was concerned with. Another thing I noticed was that the pieces were not as light. For example most segments on the front page, sports page, or arts and entertainment pages are much easier for the average person to pick up and get the gist of what is going on...but in these business pieces a person really needs to have some background in the business world or at least stay updated with what is going on in it, or they will be completely lost.

October 22, 2008


After viewing more than a few photo slideshows I started noticing something that was just annoying the crap out of me! I swear almost every single caption started with "a" or "an," it was driving me nuts!! For example, in the slideshow I like the best labeled Afghanistan, that I found through Yahoo News, had excellent pictures (aome of them even AMAZING), but after reading the captions that accompanied the images I was just frustrated and the pictures were ruined for me. I would say %90 percent of the images' captions started with "An Afghan soldier" or something extremely similar. A problem I saw amongst otehr slideshows was what appeared to be a lack of good photo opportunities. Many of the pictures looked almost posed. On the more positive side of things, I think photo slideshow are a great idea. Like people always say, a picture is a worth a thousand words!

October 21, 2008

Opinion Pieces

After reviewing three opinion pieces, one from the Daily, one from the Washington Post,and the third from the New York Times, several details jumped out at me. The first and most apparent was the tone in which the authors wrote. From the very straight forward word choice and sentence structure used by the authors, a reader can tell that the piece is written with great passion or strong feelings towards one aspect of a story, theory, etc. Another thing I noticed was the abundance of evidence provided by every writer. Not only were their arguments strong, but they had many facts to back up their position. The writers also offered opposing viewpoints to the audience, but in return battled their position against it. The last thing I noticed was that in at least 2 of the 3 opinion pieces I read ended with directions. For example somewhere that a person could go to find more information or to learn more about the topic/argument.

October 7, 2008

Vice Presidential Debate

I was not at all shocked to see that the main focus Friday morning on CNN was surrounding the new bailout plan. Although I thought it only right for that so be the center of attention as our nation is in an economic crisis, I was still upset that criticism was placed on the back burner. There was still a bit of conversation of the VP debate and people’s reactions to it, but the discourse was not as in depth. I probably watched CNN for three or four hours straight Friday morning and when the discussion was pointed at the debate between Palin and Biden not many had anything great to say about it. Most were surprised along with myself that Palin did as well as she did. I was expecting much worse. But it was pointed out numerous times her inability to answer the question asked. If ever she was unsure of a topic she would regress to one she knows well, energy! It was also stated several times on CNN that overall no one was really impressed with debate just as no one was extremely impressed with the first presidential debate. I also took a look at the Los Angeles Times, which pointed out the level at which the debate took place. The range of differing vocabulary used by both Palin and Biden was definitely taken notice of. Palin used everyday “street? language, which to many did not seem appropriate for the national stage. I found Palin’s approach to the debate as very irritating, her incessant winking and smiles throughout serious conversation. I have to say I was impressed with Palin as I thought she would do much worse and also with Biden as he showed GREAT restraint. I would definitely give the win to Joe Biden. Although Palin was able to hold her own by diverting the conversation to a subject matter she was more comfortable with. Lastly, I was going to scream if Palin used the words ticket or maverick one more time!!!

September 30, 2008

First Presidential Debate

Coverage of the first Presidential debate could and still can be found addressed in many news sources around the nation and also in a few international sources. I skimmed through a couple of online news sources, one local, one national and one international. The first was the Minnesota Daily, which had a couple of articles pertaining to the debate. One touching on student interest, where/how they gathered to view the debate, and also some of their reactions. The other focused purely on the debate of the economy and the current situation. A national source I looked at was the New York Times, a source which also contained several articles of certain issues or areas of the debate. The article that I took a closer look at discussed the disagreements between the two candidates views on economic policy and our situation in Iraq. The third source a chose to look at was BBC News. The article I found to be the most relevant or to contain the most coverage of the first presidential debate was somewhat of an overview of the entire debate. It touched on the major arguments and also gave the author's personal opinion on the debate. Kevin Conolly, the author of the BBC article, thought that both of the candidates were very cautious but neither very compelling.

September 23, 2008

$700 Billion Wall Street Bailout

I chose to read an article with the potentially same topic from the following three online sources: USA Today, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal. Here are links to the 3 articles.

Download file

Download file

Download file

Surprisingly I did not see or at least catch a whole lot of bias differentiation between the articles from the separate sources. I did recognize that both The New York Times (NYT) and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had pieces with a much more substantial length and depth of information. This is most likely because these two sources primarily focus on the United States, its economy, and Wall Street. Also, all three articles used quotes from secondary journalistic sources. For example, the Wall Street Journal article used bits and pieces of interview from both ABC’s “This Week? and Fox News Sunday. I am not entirely sure whether one would consider this beneficial or immoral, seeing as though the interview may not have been directed specifically at the topic of this particular article.
I personally found the New York Times’ article to contain the most factual details and solid coverage of the information delivered. I also discovered that this same article contained what appeared to be the most reliable and credible sources. Although each article included many institutional sources, I felt that the one chosen from the NYT contained the most amply variation of sources.
After reading all 3 of the article I sensed that the piece from USA Today took the harshest angle or position to the issue. From the start of the article the writer refers to “toxic assets,? immediately creating a negative connotation with the matter.
Overall I thought the New York Times did the best job of reporting the issue to the audience with the greatest amount of evidence.