Pulled Quotes

We have all heard of Alcatraz: the notorious 22 acre asylum in San Francisco that was once “home” to illicit men like Al Capone and George “Machine Gun” Kelly. The notorious site represents nearly 75 years of history as a former site of Civil War and Native American civil rights events, not to mention the island’s long reign as a desolate federal prison. What we have not heard of until this point, though, is the proposed metamorphosis of the infamous site into an “international peace center.” 

On Tuesday, San Francisco residents visiting the polls found Proposition C on the ballot along with the obvious questions about presidential nominees. The Proposition serves as a “trial balloon” according to the measure’s chief backer, Da Vid. If passed, San Francisco will pursue having Alcatraz taken out of the National Park Service in order to eventually initiate drastic changes to the island. The proposed peace center would serve as a “logical extension of San Francisco’s progressive history,” said Da Vid, rather than having the decaying prison serving as a significant landmark for the city. 

While backers of Proposition C view the proposed transformation as fail-safe many others feel drastically different. Republicans and Democrats alike in San Franciscosee the idea as, “wacky, and a reinforcement of the bayside city’s reputation as a haven for iconoclasts and oddballs.” “These are weirdos who want to destroy San Francisco,” says Republican spokesman Leo Lacayo. The strong opposition not only stems from the revenue Alcatraz generates for San Francisco annually (1.4 million visitors a year, second only to cable cars as the most popular attraction in the city), but also from the place the iconic symbol holds in America. Opposition strongly doubts that the measure will actually pass, stating that if it does, the inmates will once again have taken over the asylum. 

I found this article to be intriguing not because of the information it contains (although it would be hilarious if Alcatraz were turned into a “harmonium”) but because of the reporter’s chosen information and lack thereof. After reading the story I found myself asking many questions that went unanswered. For one, what exactly is a “peace center?” Charisse Jones, author of the story, fails to properly clarify what the “new Alcatraz” would consist of other than a few vague references to a statue of St. Francis of Assisiand a “harmonium.” I was also perplexed by the lack of clarification when it comes to Da Vid, the measure’s chief backer. I mean, for all we know he could be a patchouli-coated, hemp-loving hippy who came up with this cooky idea to destroy Alcatraz and build a “spiritual healing space.” For a story in a legitimate newspaper like USA Today, you would think the writer would give a little more background information on who came up with the plan. (Side note- when reading the story on-line I discovered that Da Vid is the director of the Global Peace Foundation- would have been helpful information to include in the article, huh?) I also found myself surprised with the lack of information about the likelihood of the measure being passed. Jones briefly touches on doubts of the measure being passed and the hoops Da Vid and supporters would have to jump through to be successful. She fails, however, to mention the likelihood of Congress even listening to such an off-the-wall request as turning Alcatrazinto an oasis. I feel that Jones devoted too much to historical facts and sources not pertinent to the article (i.e. Weideman, spokesman for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area) while failing to address key issues like explaining the proposition in more depth. The article, although it presents an interesting topic, needs to be more fully developed before my questions are answered and my confusion is diminished.

“The Garden Isle”, as it’s known, of Kauai, Hawaii, is an emerging example of a destination facing a recurring dilemma–how does a growing tourism hub balance economic prosperity with an emphasis on locals’ quality of life?  Found on USA Today’s website here http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2008-01-31-kauai-hawaii-development_N.htm, Laura Bly’s article, “Kauai finds itself at a bittersweet crossroads,” succinctly examines the current problems facing lawmakers and citizens of the western-most Hawaiian Island.   Bly’s composition of strategic quotes, image-conjuring descriptions, and well-integrated, appropriate facts make for an interesting read. However, her lead, which is strong overall, seems to lack congruence.  The first sentence makes the reader think that the protesters on Kauai have won their hard-fought battles against developers, while the second sentence bemoans the ominous, growing possibility of a shopping mall taking the place of an idyllic natural setting.  The second sentence saves the lead with its engaging and enraging subject matter: the destruction of a wonderful natural resource, and clarifies the direction that the article will take. Many people–especially Floridians–can relate to the looming threat of new developments in their cozy small-town backyards or the impending doom they have cast on their once-tranquil homes.  Kauai’s biggest problem stems from the largely tourism-based economy; how does a tiny island whose people depend on tourism for survival maintain a sustainable level of growth?  It’s a paradoxical issue that government leaders will be up against from now on into the foreseeable future.  This, along with the Hawaiian Superferry debate, which Bly mentions briefly, currently serve as heated points of contention among Kauaiians.  And one can only hope that the answers to the debate over what to do about all this will serve as model to follow in this type of increasingly common, touchy situation.  

I got tricked by an article on USA Today’s website today. The headline that you had to click on to get to the article said “Waterboarding Targets Identified,” but when you click on it and get to the actual article, the headline becomes “Officials Dicuss al-Qaeda Threat, Waterboarding.”

 The waterboarding story in the original headline doesn’t even show up until three quarters of the way through the article. The first three quarters deal with similar stuff discussed at the same hearing (al-Qaeda threat, etc.), but it doesn’t get to what it promised for a while. I don’t know if this is bad journalism or not, but it’s annoying at least.

The rest of the article is fairly standard. It does a decent job quoting McConnell and Hayden, and it mentions Durbin’s reply to them, but doesn’t quote him. It’s not a bad article, I’m just mad because it tricked me.