This article was very informative. The information was scientific, but not overwhelming. It was written so that a regular audience could read the article without being confused. The story did not seem to have any missing information; it was very complete. Experts included scientists both for and against the storm tracker.
The only issue I had with the article is the title. I did not think that it was important to include the "$7.6B" in the title. In the article itself, there were only one or two references to the cost of this tracker. The majority of the article was focused on what this storm tracker will enable scientists and weather personnel to do.
The article included a pro-tracker side and an anti-tracker side, as any complete article should. The argument for the side that does not agree with the tracker is that it will only increase predictors for hurricanes by "another few percent." I guess the reader is supposed to infer that this is not worth spending this much money on the tracker. The information that supports the tracker says that the current trackers have been in use since the 1980s and will soon stop working from old age, so they need to be replaced in the near future.
It was an interesting article. If earlier detection of natural disasters can be made possible, then many lives can be saved and that is always good. On the other hand, nature can be very unpredictable, and even the "super storm tracker" can malfunction at any given time. That's where the $7.6B comes in; is it really worth it? I think that's what the readers are supposed to be deciding.
The story can be found at:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2008-10-23-satellite_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Beware of headline writers. They rarely read your article throughly enough to provide a comprehensive, adequate title. I'll admit that it's a very difficult job given the time constraints and spacing issues. Nevertheless, I often find that headlines fail because of pure laziness! Also, I thought headline writers usually exclude numbers.
In defense of headline writers, I have to point out that Ryan makes a sweeping statement -- "they rarely read your article thoroughly enough ... " Ouch! That does happen sometimes, but I'll bet they read thoroughly more often than not. Anyway, the $7.6B is not how anybody talks. I think that is the bigger problem. I wans't even thinking "satellite" when I read the headline. Good thing I saw an illustration when I followed the link.
Post a Comment