Since the title advertises that the Democrats in the House were the ones proposing this new bill, I was expecting one of two types of articles: either the author was a Democrat who would praise his political party's choice, or she was a Republican who would bash this new proposal. (Maybe that's just because I tend to interject my own opinions into my stories from time to time.)
Pleasantly, I found out that it was neither choice. The author did not seem to interject her opinion. She also found sources from each political party to quote in her story and quotes to back up the claims that were being made. She not only found politicians as sources, but she found environmental experts as well to include in the piece. The author also found statistics for emission reductions from both the Democratic presidential nominee (Barack Obama) and the Republican presidential nominee (John McCain) to incorporate in her article.
This story was more of an explanatory story that explained just what this bill was proposing and how and when this would all be occurring. It started by explaining what the purpose of the bill was, which is to reduce the gases being released from power plants, factories and as a product of transportation. These gases are thought to cause global warming. The bill wants to reduce these emissions 80% by the year 205o. One criticism of this bill is that the reductions would not being until the year 2012.
The story can be found at:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-10-08-house-climate-change-bill_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I find it interesting that John Dingell is always blasted in these environmental "draft legislation" pieces for having ties to Detroit automakers? It's interesting because he is never alloted an opportunity to respond. In essence, one of the sources says that he is using his committee position to advance his agenda. That's pretty damning. It might be worth a call to Dingell.
I completely see what you mean about the writer NOT interjecting themselves into the piece. It doesn't make it sound boring, dry, or recited-- it makes it sound credible.
This article was straight forward, and pleasantly so. I think if the writer had tried to go a different way with it they would have lost readers or the clarity of what they're saying.
Post a Comment