Pulled Quotes

In a recent article in USA Today entitled 10% of pilots allowed to fly arms, the article left itself to be pretty self-explanatory. Guns were never allowed on airplanes, yet after the events of 9/11, officials of TSA believe guns will be a protective piece of equipment in case of another hijacking.

It is scary to think we are going to be flying around with an armed semiautomatic pistol in the cockpit of our so-called “pleasant flight.” TSA wants to keep their flyers safe, but why with a gun? The hijackers are trying to take control of the aircraft, so whose to say they aren’t equipped with more dangerous weapons?

This article left me worried. It went on to report an incident on a flight from Charlotte to Denver on March 22 with the gun that was meant to “keep passengers safe”, went off in the cockpit. That seems dangerous for all on board if the gun is going off accidentally. Although no one was hurt, we must wonder what if someone gets control of the gun on an aircraft that is thousands of feet in the air? Then what? To me, this sounds like an idea heading in a downward spiral and quick; maybe the problem is we still need better security.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few weeks, you already know about the vandalism in Flagler Hall. Though Dr. Jim Beasley sent a Student-Today immediately after, it took The Reporter a bit longer to cover the story. Finally, though, there was an account of what went on in the issue that came out on Thursday.

Unfortunately, though, the author of this article did not take this journalism class. Information such as “at this time, the police have no suspects, but bloody glass was found at the scene on both the second and third floors, along with matching shoe imprints that were presumably left by the vandals and 2×4’s that were presumably used to inflict much of the damage” should have been closer to the beginning of the article. (It was actually the last paragraph). Bloody glass? Shoe imprints? You don’t have to be a fan of CSI to know that that’s important.

The aforementioned details might have shown up at the beginning of the article, had the author had a better command of the inverted pyramid style. Instead, though, he used chronological order to describe the events. He also used the “when” first in the lead, when the “what” was clearly more important.

Other than that, the article had some new information that I hadn’t heard through the Stetson rumor mill. There were good quotes from faculty affected by the incident; I especially liked the thoroughness of the quote from Dr. Farrell: “It was very random. Nobody could figure out a pattern to it. Most of the damage that was done was to doorframes and monitors, but not computers; there seems to be no destruction of work.”

CNN reported that a French yacht off the coast of Somalia was hijacked by pirates. I liked this story because the journalist was able to weave other relevant stories into it which yielded a more thoroughly reported story.

The sources range from the French Prime Minister to a Somalian fisherman, who reportedly saw a small boat head towards the yacht several hundred miles north of the capital. The journalist clearly took the time, as well, to learn about the state of the Somalian government, which is one of the reasons piracy off it’s coast has been increasing; the government is unable to patrol their waters.

Furthermore, the journalist reports on France’s reaction to the hijacked yacht, which has 22 French citizens o board. The reader is given a broad, clear picture of the news. It seems liked all the bases were covered and the thoroughness of the reporting, and then finding relevant facts and stories related to the region, were executed efficiently, as well.