Pulled Quotes

I am not sure how I feel about the story of Montclaire State University requiring cell phones for students.  Not just any cell phone, but a specific one, bought through the school!  The article starts out with a narrative lead about Amanda Phillips turning on her GPS in her cell phone while walking to her dorm room at night. 

At first I thought cool, what a great idea.  However, I think the news buried the main idea toward the end.  These phone are mandatory and around $200.00 per semester.  If the kid wants a cool I-phone, forget it, the school wants them to have this Sprint phone.  The plan has 50 peak minutes (which is pretty weak) and some other features.  The main feature is the GPS that students can activate if in trouble or if they are walking alone. 

The story also mentions that not everyone on campus has the cell phone.  Before I knew that it had a large price tag, I wondered why people would not take advantage, however, know I know.  I would still like to know how people are getting by without getting it.  If it is mandatory, are the students without it getting punished somehow?  I would like to get opinions from the other side.   What about the students that think it is ridiculous to have a phone like everyone else and that are being forced to buy one.

 The story also said the beeper goes off just a few times a month.  So, really, there has been no one saved from using this telephone.  Although, maybe it will work one day.  I would also like to know if the students think it is unnecessary since there haven’t been any real uses for the emergency feature.

This started well before the Virginia-Tech shootings, which I think is a great idea.  So many safety features have come out after the fact when it is too late.  I would like to know though, what impacted the school to buy these phones before the massacre occurred?  I think the article has major issues with the writing style.  The important things are buried and there are a lot of questions that they left unanswered.  I actually have read this article in many places.  The first one I read did not contain the information that the phones were mandatory.  So this article contains the most information for the reader. 

In the USA Today article Weekend update: ‘SNL’ is back in the race, the lede informs us that Saturday Night Live is back from the writers’ strike. The deck however, speaks of the fact that the show is without an actor cast as Barack Obama. While both of these stories are clearly news worthy, I believe that the lede, deck, and also the entire article, miss one key question.  

It is clear that in the most exciting election to date, SNL is looked upon to serve us with witty imitations and hilarious cracks at the candidates, but I believe that a huge question to ask is, “will they be able to?” I can’t speak for anyone else, but in recent years of watching SNL, it seems that it has lost its flow. The show I remember years ago had skits that made everyone roll, but as of recent, it hasn’t been up to ‘lock box’ SNL par. Hopefully, the show will surprise me and come out swigging with some refreshing skits of Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee, but I am not sure if they can. 

  With the help of Tina Fey who is hosting and some fresh new faces it is definitely possible, but I think it is a little premature to jump back on the SNL bandwagon just yet. The four weeks of upcoming episodes may prove me wrong, and I hope they do, because quite frankly, just running ‘best of’ episodes from when they used to be funny, just won’t cut it.

After all of our talk in class about the inverted pyramid, I have found myself looking for stories that do not follow the formula of putting the most important information first (stories other than those in The Reporter). And an article in Monday’s USA Today about Bush’s recent visit to Africa fits that criterion.

The first thing that caught my attention about the article Tanzanians embrace Bush, U.S. aid (other than the headline) was the lead. Rather than providing the most important information first, the purpose for Bush’s visit to Africa- and an explanation of the photo of Bush playing under a mosquito net with two children- the writer opens the short article with a detailed description of chanting Masai warriors and dancing joyous women welcoming Bush to Tanzania. It is not until the second paragraph that readers find out exactly why Bush is even in Africa and what he plans to do while there. In many cases I don’t think this sort of creative, frilly lead would work from a journalistic, get to the point, attitude. For this story, however, it works wonderfully. The story is not of vital importance to many readers in the U.S. simply because of the proximity and the lack of impact malaria has on most of us (I mean, who in the U.S. really cares/worries about malaria, anyway?). The only reason the story even gets coverage (buried at the bottom of page 7A) is because of the prominence of President Bush- we all want to know what our great leader is up to now.

The writer of the article does a good job of giving readers the facts (why Bush is in Tanzania, what program he is promoting, how effective the program has been thus far, who the efforts are helping, where the efforts are focused, etc.) while also adding a descriptive element void in many stories that are more newsworthy. By doing so, the article satisfies readers by providing useful information and entertainment simultaneously.

I was satisfied after reading this article because in addition to the effectiveness of the information and writing style, the article provided a strong emotional appeal. While reading, I found myself relieved about the positive effects of the malaria program gains, excited about the potential strides the program will soon make and surprised, if not in awe, about the warm reception of President Bush and the U.S. aid efforts. If Tanzanians think he is that good, he can’t be all bad, right?

The first good news I’ve read in a while about Iraq comes from USA Today’s Jim Micheals in a story about Al-Queda’s targeting of volunteer security forces in Iraq.  At least it seems like good news: that is, the sub-story of how volunteers for Iraqi-led, U.S. and Iraqi forces-backed security groups have increased dramatically as of late, reducing the dangers of life in Iraq’s cities–and not the fact that these forces are now the principal target of the terrorists.  However, the fact that terrorists see these volunteer forces as a threat to their well-being (and therefore as their main enemy) is great news.   The terrorists’ tactical information came from an intercepted document that was written by an Al-Queda regional commander to one of his subordinates.  The letter stressed the danger posed by the Iraqi volunteers to Al-Queda’s operations, and encouraged an increase in attacks on them.  Micheal’s article is logically organized and informative on the subject, and only leaves a few questions of mine unanswered.  These include: What exactly do these groups do to keep security?  Put up neighborhood watch signs?  How can volunteers get paid $350 per month?  Is that much money over there, or simply a token of the U.S.’s good will towards them?  Are the Al-Queda members principally Iraqis?  And, finally, if the numbers show that the terrorist attacks on the volunteer groups are resulting in fewer casualties, why is this?