Pulled Quotes

In the Wednesday, February 6, 2008 USA Today, page 1D is an article called, Kanye’s year for Grammy ‘Graduation’ by Edna Gundersen.  I found this article really interesting because I think the focus and spin of the article was very different than what I, the reader expected. While I do not necessarily believe that Gundersen’s choice of focus in this article was all that good or more importantly, appropriate, I still did find it interesting. In this article about Kanye West’s album as a potential winner for the best-album Grammy in this year’s upcoming Grammy award show celebration, Gundersen focused on how a musician’s public reputation really matters when receiving an award for their talent. As a reader, I found this focus to be somewhat irrelevant to Kanye West as an artist and to whether or not he deserves to win an award for his musical talents. Meanwhile, I also found this focus to be a little unethical. Gundersen mentions more than once that Kanye West should receive the best-album Grammy because he has been nominated for three years and has never won. I think that this is the wrong idea to put in the head of readers, which is thus in return unethical because she fails to explore his talent, the real reason why he should win this award.   She also mentions that Kanye might get a sympathy vote because of the recent death of his mother, which is also something that Gundersen could have definitely left out. This statement is really unnecessary when talking about why he should win this award, and is also unethical because it makes readers think that he could win just because people feel bad for him when in all reality that really isn’t the reason he should win. Again, Gundersen is taking away from him as a talented artist!!!!!Gundersen also does unethical reporting in this article when she talks about Kanye as a competitive and hungry to win man. She says in the beginning of the article that Kanye West is, “Notorious for reacting angrily to award-shows snubs, Kanye West likely will for from sore loser…” and then she even ends the article with, “And, unlike Amy, there’s no doubt that Kanye will be holding his trophies, beaming and putting on a great show. That work ethic and obvious hunger for the prize has to count for something.” Both these comments, with one of them starting the article and the other one ending the article puts an image in readers’ minds of Kanye West as a greedy, angry and selfish artist who is unappreciative with the joys and luxuries his talent and career have come to bring him. With these comments, Gundersen is very bias and unethical, writing the article with obvious personal opinions embedded within, which journalists are not suppose to do. Another problem that I had with this article was that I thought more sources could be use. More credible and valuable sources as well. Gundersen quotes from bloggers on Internet sites, and has one quote from a magazine journalist. I think that these sources not only show that she could have done more research and talked to more people, but also makes the article seem bias again. In my head as a reader, with these sources, I think that Gundersen couldn’t find any other people that say good things about Kanye as a talented artist, and because of this I come to believe that Gundersen is being bias by not having more credible and valuable quotes.  The quotes she has also makes Kanye again look like he is not winning because of his talents, more like he is winning because the competition is not so fierce this year, which again I find to be very bias reporting.  I think that this article by Gundersen is missing a lot of elements. It is missing the elements of discussing who Kanye is as an artist. Instead she discusses his reputation next to others. The Grammys is about artistic talent, not about reputation and I thought that focusing on the reputation on musical artists takes away from what the Grammys is really all about. With this, I think that Gundersen clearly failed to report the most important news. While I respect and admire that she took a different approach to an artist winning a Grammy, I think she took the wrong approach and the wrong focus and therefore failed to give readers what we should know and what we want to know about Kanye as an artist and as a artist who is Grammy deserving.  

     When I think of pets, the first few creatures that come to mind are dogs, cats, fish, and maybe even the occasional bird here and there. But for Brian Radenberg, the word “pet” probably conjures up the image of something scaly, slithery, and a little scary.
      Unfortunately, the government wants to intervene.
      Today’s issue of the Orlando Sentinel tells the story of how the pet-keeping habits of Deltona resident and owner of 54 snakes have started quite the discussion in the Florida government. The Florida Association of Counties and the wildlife commission are meeting this month tp try to start mandating owners of dangerous pets to “undergo criminal-background checks and to somehow warn firefighters, paramedics and police about the animals.” Further, leaders of the association are also asking the state to “limit dangerous animals to certain areas.” 
         Quite honestly, I was a little appalled at this. First of all, what really defines a “dangerous animal” ? Yes, when many people think of snakes, they think of sharp teeth and venom. But what about, say,  larger dogs? To say that all Rotweillers, for instance, are dangerous is not true. Sure, there are some big dogs who bite and bark and probably should stay behind a very strong fence. But then again, I’d venture to guess that there are some nice Dobermans, too. So how does the government regulate that?
       Also, I want to know more about this whole “limiting dangerous animals to certain areas” thing. Would people who own snakes be forced to move out of their residence to go to another place that was reptile-friendly? How would this affect the real estate market? What happens if there is a really good school in the “dangerous animals” area? Would the people of the non-dangerous animal area not send their kids there because a resident’s pet could MAYBE get loose and harm them?
         Frankly, I think this whole debate is silly. Even if they did do something about domestic animals, what happens to the ones in the wild? Are they going to start outlawing raccoons because some of them have rabies and could harm people who happen to walk by?
          This article, though it is an interesting topic, still leaves me wondering about some things. I am hoping that a follow-up article is printed after the meeting on the 25th so that I can see what’s going to become of Radenberg and some of the other pet owners in the Central Florida area.