Pulled Quotes

A recent USA Today article caught my attention, only to leave me very unsatisfied at the end. The article, Cutting trees can fall on wrong side of the law, is about home and business owners cutting down trees to improve their views of Lake Tahoe and the Las Vegas Strip. Those desiring the ideal scenic views, however, forgot to ask for permission and are now facing hefty fines and prison time.   The topic of the article was very interesting, however, the execution of the writing was a different story. From the get go I had issues with the article. The writer started the article with a “who” lead that is completely irrelevant to the story. Who cares who Douglas Hoffman is (sorry, Doug)? Rather than introducing the most important, relevant information first the writer buried the real meat of the story, $200,000+ fines and possible 20-year prison sentences for cutting down more than 500 trees.  In addition to burying the lead, the author leaves readers with many unanswered questions. While reading I found myself asking many questions that I hoped would be answered later in the story: Why is the tree cutting such a large problem resulting in such stiff legal penalties? How do officials find out about the illegal tree cutting? What are the environmental impacts on Lake Tahoe? Is the issue all about money and politics or are lawmakers actually concerned with the well-being of the land and the species living there? To my displeasure, none of the previous questions (or any others for that matter) were answered.  The lack of relevant information in this article was baffling to me. The author had plenty of space to expand on background information and other pertinent details. Rather than using the space to do so the author switched focus mid-way through the article, switching from the problem in Lake Tahoe to similar problems occurring in other states. This move would have been better if the article did not have so many loose ends that need answers.

In the Florida Today article titled, Police: Parents in bar leave child in running car, a story is told of a child who was left in a locked vehicle while her parents were inside of a bar for at least two hours. This story is clearly newsworthy because of the appalling nature of it. If nothing else, the story serves as an example to the public of how to be completely useless as parents and get arrested in the process.

In terms of the structure of the story, I noticed that the lead is missing a few of the big questions. In the lead, the questions pertaining to who, what, and where are answered, but when and why are unclear. While most readers can probably live without knowing when this event happened, other than the fact that it happened recently, I think that the why is crucial to the story. Why was a late night stop at the bar so imperative? Was the house just too far away? Were they celebrating their ineptness as parents?

An in depth interview of either the parents or some close friends may shed some light on the reasons for this showcase of irresponsibility. The article also doesn’t give any information about the child’s current state. Is she okay? Is she staying with a relative since both of her parents are in jail? These are just a few aspects that are absent that could enhance the article.

An article found on USA Today’s website reported on a construction accident that occurred on the east side of New York City today.  Once again, I was mislead by the title of the article: “3 still missing in NYC crane accident.”  I anticipated that the article would discuss the three people who were missing from this accident, yet the article focused on the accident itself.

Other than this, I thought this article was a pretty decent one.  The writer reported on how the accident happened, what the condition of the accident is as of now, and the outlying issues related to the accident.  The most interesting part of the article was that there had been complaints and violations about this construction site a number of times before this accident occurred.  One particularly useful quote that was used was from a former construction contractor about how the crane was not properly braced against the building.

This quote helped the article gain strength by creating interest in the topic, although I think that this quote should have gone further up in the article, as it is newsworthy and creates the opportunity for a follow up article.  As for the three people missing, it would have been nice to have more information on them, especially since one missing was not part of the construction team.

A USA Today article that weighs the importance of hair and height to the success of CEOs’ careers  reveals fascinating insight into the psychology of appearance.  But it fails to offer the kind of organization that could help hold readers attention.      The piece kicks off with a confusing lead that fails to clearly identify the thesis that Del Jones attempts to convey.  After considering the points throughout the following several paragraphs, it becomes clearer that the author’s research has resulted in the conclusion that, for CEOs, to be bald is better than to be short.  Yet, the third and fourth sentences, which essentially serve as the lead, read: “They even know a few leadership lessons that aren’t taught in business school–such as, it helps to be tall.  But an unscientific survey of USA Today’s panel of CEOs and other evidence suggest that baldness might be a blind spot for many.”  What is he trying to say in the latter sentence?  That baldness might be a largely ignored, yet impeding factor to one’s success?  Or that baldness has little impact on most people’s judgement of leaders?  Whichever it is, Jones could have used more understandable, less fancy language to get across his point.    Following this bungled introduction is a much more apparent, well-worded barrage of information supporting the general consensus among CEOs that height outweighs hair.  Notable is the use of a comical quote by CEO Murray Martin that would have been stupid not to include: “‘Lack of hair can only mean the brain is busy with more important functions,’” he says.   After four more paragraphs that retain modest organization, the author begins a bullet list of his follicular findings.  This would be acceptable–as it would be hard to arrange these facts in a coherent order–but without paying attention to the little black dots, it’s hard to decipher just where exactly the list stops.  It seems that, from here on out, Jones resigns to simply let the facts fly in a haphazard way that leaves organization at the door opening into the bullet list.  He deserves credit–logically connecting the dots here would have been tough–but its almost as if he hoped the designer would cut him off at the end of the list.   Reading the rest consequently becomes ho-hum, and basically unnecessary.    One more thing:  Jones should have researched the psychology behind a powerful appearance, rather than just spit off a bunch of glorified hearsay.   He could have interviewed psychologists. Maybe even read a little.  One question he should have asked is, could there be a deeper reason that CEOs and politicians tend to have hair, such as the confidence a head of hair gives a man?  It would have bolstered the credibility of his article, which currently rests on the results of a few surveys and the opinions of some pencil-pushers.    The idea for this article was creative, but that was where the ingenuity stopped.     

The status quo is under heavy attack when American homosexuals demand equal right to own library cards. The Onion reported in Washington D.C. that more and more gays and lesbians are demanding access to library cards. The reporter has done a good job in finding legitimate sources to illustrate the stories impact and all the idiosyncrasies it has yielded. The homo/literary spectrum has been covered expertly with sources ranging from Hawaiian librarians to Library and Information Sciences to Gays and Lesbians Allied Against Defamation to the Church. The newsworthiness of the article itself, however, is the big reason how this article caught my attention, as I’m sure it will catch the attention of countess others.

As our world passes into another echelon of intolerance, ignorance, and prejudice, our social institutions suffer tremendously. One journalist, however, sees through the polluted hate-filled environment and evinces with unparalleled perspicacity the confrontation between two American groups that is unquestionably destroying our society: homosexuals and library card holders. Citizens of the world can now rest their finger on the sole source of suffering in the world, thanks to the Onion and this brave journalist. The impact, consequence, and proximity of this story makes it one of the most important piece of journalism since the creation of the media. The outcome of whether homosexuals will be allowed to acquire library cards will push our planet over the edge with people tearing up perfectly good library cards.

The journalist uses a vast arsenal of science, religion, government, education and first person accounts to bring the reader all the facts they need to not only formulate their own opinion on this monumental issue, but also prepare for the dark days ahead. “If gays are issued cards too quickly, we could see a violent reactionary response, with millions of shocked and offended Americans cutting up their own cards and their children’s cards.” Violence is in the cards for library cards when gays are granted the unalienable right that over 50 million Americans enjoy, but these boundaries have to be broken, regardless of the terrorism that might follow.

Some of the finest journalism I’ve ever seen.