Pulled Quotes

I found an article in last weeks USA Today in the Opinion section about the increase of Sexually Transmitted Diseases among adolescent African American girls. The article was entitled “Black teen STD rate needs our attention;” it was an interesting article to me and the lead did a good job of pulling in the reader.

I felt it had a strong point of view as well as incorporating the facts and percentages of STDs among African Americans and Caucasians. It was something the writer, Yolanda Young, found to be a topic that deserves to be brought to the attention of the younger generations. The article gives the message to make a difference in the ways teens are living their lives. The rise in numbers is due to poor communities and sexual experiences beginning at a younger and more vulnerable age. I think it should be more newsworthy instead of an opinion piece. The writer has a strong opinion and feels this is an important and influential issue going on in the world around us; therefore, I find it should be made more newsworthy and should be longer to include more information for those readers that want to learn more and to live a healthier lifestyle.

I’m not sure if ‘human interests’ is a fitting label with which to describe the focus of the USA Today story on the results of The Acme World Oyster Eating championships, but reading it sure made me interested in the unique humans who participated in the event.  

The anecdotal lead, which includes the names–”Deep Dish” and “Crazy Legs”–of the champion and one of his competitors, respectively, introduces a story founded solidly upon the iron bellies of those in participation.  Writing that “Patrick “Deep Dish” Bertoletti looked down at the litter of empty oyster shells in front of him and savored the sweet taste of victory…For Crazy Legs Conti, the bitter taste of defeat could be washed away only by beer”  is an informal, yet good, way to provide the ‘What’ of the story while simultaneously generating interest in its colorful characters.  The paragraph quoted above also has the effect of drawing readers in to find out more by omitting the name of the championship, which is saved for the second paragraph.

The second paragraph is creative in its manner of revealing information: the name of the tournament and the day on which it took place, the way the championship belt looks, Bertoletti’s skinny appearance, age, residency, and winning number of mollusks munched, and the zoological term for the class of animal under which the contest’s fare falls is all cleverly fit into in two sentences using a total of only 42 words.  

The third paragraph is noteworthy for its strategic quotation of Bertoletti.  It reads, ‘ “I could probably do a couple dozen more, especially if they were charbroiled,” said Bertoletti, who holds the endurance oyster-eating record, having downed 53 1/2 dozen in 2007 before calling it quits.  ”Although they’re great raw.” ‘  These two sentences answer questions likely to arise in the minds of readers at this point: how the oysters were prepared (a relevant factor when considering the gastrointestinal challenge behind Bertoletti’s feat), and how many Bertoletti can eat without a time restaint–avoiding a ‘ “reversal of fortune” ‘ to add a record to the champ’s resume.

Next comes the results for the third place finisher, Conti.  The emphasis on Conti in the lead, and mention of him here before that of second place finisher Lee, is logical for a few reasons.  First and foremost, Conti has a great name for a human interests piece–his real first and middle names are Crazy and Legs, respectively.  Secondly, Crazy Legs provides a good quote for the next paragraph about the oyster’s lack of an aphrodisiacal quality when devoured in such high quantities.  Finally, the eccentric competitor is featured alongside of Bertoletti in the photo used for the story.  

At this point, the writer credits Juliet Lee for her second place finish.  This is reasonable, as I just said, but the next paragraph could include her name, if possible, to make things flow better.  If Lee is a professional eater who competes year-round in Major League Eaters events, the seventh paragraph’s sentence should be precluded with “Lee is one of…”  If Lee is not a pro, then it could be precluded with “While Lee was a unexpected entrant in the event, Bertoletti and Conti are two of…”  If none of the podium finishers are professional eaters, then it should read, “All of the podium finishers ousted (the) dozen professional eaters who compete in Major League Eaters events year-round [that] squared off at the French Quarter Festival on Saturday.   

The remainder of the story is solid, and it closes with a good quote:  ’ “I feel good about that; my goal was 15 dozen,” Zukowski said.  ”I had only eaten one raw oyster in my life before this and I thought I’d vomit after it.  I had them.” ‘  This shows the determination of the competitors, and is funny because most readers have probably lost any appetite they may have started with once they have finished reading this piece.  

I read an article on April 13 in USAToday that talked about a Michigan University that has closed temporarily because of threatening graffiti messages in the men’s bathroom. The article immediately caught my eye because of the lead and headline.

The lead was very informative and gave a good deal of information in less than 25 words. It definitely answered the who, what, where, why and how very straightforwardly. I thought the journalist did a great job at giving as much detail as possible. My first question when I read the lead was “what did the messages say that were so threatening that could have caused a school to close down?” Next sentence after the lead answered my question (threats about an even that would occur on April 14).

I thought the journalist also was very effective at using the inverted pyramid, he gave the most juicy and relevant facts first then went into background. Overall the story was well written with some good sources, such as head security officers at the campus and campus officials.

In Monday, April 7th USA Today there was an article on page 1D by Scott Bowles called “‘21′ pays $15.1 million.” Personally, as a journalism student I thought that this article was poorly written. I felt that there were many questions left unanswered and many statements were very vague which in return made it very difficult for the reader to understand what was being written. Some of the questions I personally had as a reader were,  why did they call it Kevin Spacey’s film? Is he just the most famous person in it or did he write, produce or direct it? What did Bowles mean by a slew of newcomers? How do analysts project how much money a film will make? It could have been an interesting fact for readers to know. Also what is Preston-Sturges comedies? The reader should be aware of this statement in order to understand the article and the claims that the writer is making. And why does Bowles also claim that these Preston-Sturges comedies rarely catch fire with U.S. audiences? Also why is Hollywood in a slump? See, there were many questions in this article that were left unanswered and I felt were crucial for the reader to understand what the article was all about. Also, Bowles failed to really have any credible sources or quotes from the sources that he did use. 

I honestly think that the only thing well done in this article was that the lead was written well. Besides that, I think that the article was poorly written and could have included a lot more valuable information.