I will be analyzing "China: Wealth, Lifestyle, and Culture" from CNN.com.
I talked with my roommate, Wenlin, who is from China. He grew up in China and did not step foot on American soil until January of 2009. He is an international student here at the University of Minnesota.
He said the article is not stereotypical, but the article could go more in depth about China and its lifestyles and cultures.
The story does not have any quotes and it is not very detailed.
Recently in Analysis Category
I will be analyzing "China: Wealth, Lifestyle, and Culture" from CNN.com.
I will be analyzing a story from the New York Times about economic momentum.
The reporter used numbers to tell the story by making them the key focus of parts of the story. He used them to show dramatic aspects of the story. The numbers are not overwhelming, but they are powerful and help tell the story.
One can tell the reporter used math to calculate percents. The reporter had to reword some of the information so it made more sense for readers.
The reporter used many sources for his information and they are all sourced correctly.
I will be analyzing an obituary form the New York Times about Blanche Thebom.
For sources, the writer used a close friend and multiple local newspapers.
The article has a standard New York Times obituary lead. The lead works very well; it tells the reader who she was, why she was important, and when and where she died.
The obit differs from a resume because the obit is long and detailed, whereas resumes are generally shorter and concise. Also, the obit is more touching than a resume would be.
I will be analyzing a press release and a news report about Governor Pawlenty and the health care plan proposed in the Minnesota state legislature.
In general, the news report was much less biased than the press release. The press release has many quotes from Pawlenty that express his point of view, but their are no quotes from the opposing side. In contrast, in the news report, there were quotes from both Democrats and Republicans; the News report was more objective than the press release.
Also, the news report quoted a variety of sources, such as economists and government officials. On the other hand, the press release only quotes Pawlenty.
I will be comparing CNN and MSNBC.
Both news organizations have many different types of media to retrieve information. For example, they both have slide shows with stories, basic news stories, video reporting online, TV stations, and many digital news stories, radio stations, and much more.
All of these media complement news stories by adding more color to the story. For example, one can read the regular news story and then see a video of the story, listen to it on the radio, etc; they can retrieve information about the story in many different ways.
In the media that focuses on pictures and videos, one will see simple writing that quickly summarizes the story. The writing in these cases is used to complement the story, instead of tell the story (the videos and pictures tell the story).
I will be analyzing a story on WCCO.com about a bomb threat at Hopkins High School.
The leads in the two stories are slightly different. The lead in the second story says the exact times of the series of events that took place; the second lead is much more specific.
The main news is summarized about the same. Each story says the important details first. The second story is a little more specific though.
The second story advances the news by telling the story the story in a more specific manner. Also, the second story has a quote from a person who works at the high school, which adds more color to the story.
I do not think the second story is a response to another news organization's story; there is nothing in the story that indicates it is in response to another organization.
I will be analyzing a story on CNN.com that talks about a snow storm expected to hit many southern states.
The information in this story flows smoothly, with the most important and exciting information at the top of the article. After the most important and exciting information, there is a quote from the National Weather Service about the storm. This quote is not very interesting, but it states an important fact for the story. After the quote, the writer includes an interesting peace of information regarding flight cancellations. This part of the article is not needed, but it is interesting and is helpful for many people who are traveling to the South in the next few days.
The ordering of the Information is very effective. As the reader, I felt as though I got what I needed to know in the first two paragraphs. The first two paragraphs also kept me interested in the article so I would read on.
The article could have been written differently, but it did not have to be. The writer could have led with the flight cancellations and focused the story on the flight cancellations.
I will be analyzing a story from CNN.com about five people who died in a power plant explosion in Connecticut.
This article used many sources, including "local officials," the mayor of the city, the deputy fire marshal, the governor, the local hospital's website, an ER physician, a hospital spokesman, the Connecticut state police lieutenant, the plant manager, a citizen who lives 10 miles from the plant, and another local resident.
The sources are scattered throughout the story. Some of the sources are used at the beginning of the article and then again at the end of the article. Also, the sources that explained reactions to the disaster, rather than facts, were used at the end of the article.
The information for the story came from two types of sources. Most of the sources were from people; however, one of the sources - the hospital's website - was a digital source.
The reporter set up the attributions by saying the information given by the source and then saying the source of the information. Sometimes, however, the reported uses the attribution in the middle of the sentence. The reporter did a good job of setting up the attributions because the reporter made the story an easy and smooth read. It was never confusing as to what sources gave what information.
I will be analyzing a lead in a story on CNN about the burial of a soldier who died in a WWI battle and was found in a mass grave in 2008.
The lead in this story contains the basic news elements of the story. It tells us the who, what, when, and where.
The "where" is more detailed than it should to be. The "where" is Fromelles, France. I think in this case the writer just had to say France because the specific city is not important to understand the rest of the article. The city should be named later in the article, but not in the lead.
The "who" is general. The "who" is just a recovered body from a WWI battle being buried. The writer could not be more specific because the name of the soldier is unknown. Even if the name was known, the writer would not need to be more specific because the soldier was not a celebrity.
The "when" is general, as it should be. The writer just says the event happened on Saturday.
The "what" is also general. The "what" is just the soldier being buried. There is no need to go into any more detail in the lead.
After the writer mentions the who, what, when, and where, he goes into more detail in the lead about the history of the mass grave. Normally going into more detail would not be necessary in the lead. However, in this case, the detail in the lead, which describes the battle that resulted in the mass grave, was very interesting and helped hook the reader and get the reader to read the rest of the article.