This article really didn't have any sources. It was pretty much a cover of the summit, but without anyone's opinions included. It was kind of hard to tell if what was being said was from something like a press release or if the reporter was just writing what she saw at the conference. There were direct quotes from Schwarzenegger, and one longer quote from president-elect Barack Obama.
The article was focused on the opening, especially since it included the visit from Obama, so the end of the article didn't seem to fit. The last three paragraphs were about the summit itself, telling the location, other countries involoved and the co-hosts of the event. They just seemed out of place in the article, since the majority was talking about Schwarzenegger and Obama.
It would have been interesting to get quotes from other leaders at the summit. Even other politicians from other states, some of the co-hosts, would have added more to the story. By adding other sources besides Schwarzenegger and Obama, the article would seem less like a press release or an opinionated piece. More sources would have helped this story.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-11-18-climate-summit_N.htm
Friday, November 21, 2008
Experts: Warming to cause global water shortages by 2080
This was a good-yet startling-article. I think the piece was supposed to show the world that global warming is having more effects than just the ones we always hear about. It was something new and interesting to read about.
The article had a lot of scientific information, but it didn't seem overwhelming. The information seemed to be more about the numbers; I think it was like trying to shock the readers into changing their ways.
The one point that I found funny was the paragraph about the U.S. not signing the Kyoto Protocal. "But the USA — long the world's biggest emitter, though it is now rivaled by China — rejected the plan over concerns it would harm the American economy." It just seemed to be kind of ironic, seeing the current state of our economy. Overall, that information didn't really seem to be relevant to the article; it was more of a random fact that was thrown in.
The article was a bit short, but I think it was long enough to serve it's purpose: getting out alternate information on the effects of global warming. The article was an interesting one and I'm glad that the journalist covered it.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-11-18-climate-change-water-shortages_N.htm
The article had a lot of scientific information, but it didn't seem overwhelming. The information seemed to be more about the numbers; I think it was like trying to shock the readers into changing their ways.
The one point that I found funny was the paragraph about the U.S. not signing the Kyoto Protocal. "But the USA — long the world's biggest emitter, though it is now rivaled by China — rejected the plan over concerns it would harm the American economy." It just seemed to be kind of ironic, seeing the current state of our economy. Overall, that information didn't really seem to be relevant to the article; it was more of a random fact that was thrown in.
The article was a bit short, but I think it was long enough to serve it's purpose: getting out alternate information on the effects of global warming. The article was an interesting one and I'm glad that the journalist covered it.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-11-18-climate-change-water-shortages_N.htm
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Energy is major concern in Rhode Island
This is an older article-from before the presidential election, but I thought it was a good article for the environment. This was a good article that combined both experts and common people as sources. The journalist got quotes from experts on energy and regular Rhode Island residents. I liked this combination.
This article had a nice flow. It gave facts and statistics, but it wasn't overwhelming. The statistics were explained well and it just flowed from one point to the next. The information was put in words that average readers could understand. The author also got quotes from people who supported each candidate (separately), supported both candidates (equally), and who did not support either candidate. The only point of view that was excluded (that I could see) was a source like a teenager or young adult. The sources all seemed to be in their upper 30s and older. It would have been interesting to see a younger person's perspective on this. Maybe a younger couple who just got married and are dealing with the new reality of energy bills? I think having that other opinion would have added to the article.
While I think was supposed to be more of a political article, I found it to be more of an environmental article. Yes, there was information about both candidates included in the article, but I didn't feel that the information was excessive. The fourth paragraph seemed a little out of place, and I don't know if I would have included it as a separate paragraph. The information wasn't vital to the article and I think it could have been briefly mentioned in a later paragraph instead of putting it as it's own that high in the article.
Overall, I really liked this article. I think it was well written and had a good flow. I feel like this was something that the average reader would like to read and could relate to/with. I could easily follow the article and I liked the variety of sources that were used.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-12-50statesrhodeisland_n.htm
This article had a nice flow. It gave facts and statistics, but it wasn't overwhelming. The statistics were explained well and it just flowed from one point to the next. The information was put in words that average readers could understand. The author also got quotes from people who supported each candidate (separately), supported both candidates (equally), and who did not support either candidate. The only point of view that was excluded (that I could see) was a source like a teenager or young adult. The sources all seemed to be in their upper 30s and older. It would have been interesting to see a younger person's perspective on this. Maybe a younger couple who just got married and are dealing with the new reality of energy bills? I think having that other opinion would have added to the article.
While I think was supposed to be more of a political article, I found it to be more of an environmental article. Yes, there was information about both candidates included in the article, but I didn't feel that the information was excessive. The fourth paragraph seemed a little out of place, and I don't know if I would have included it as a separate paragraph. The information wasn't vital to the article and I think it could have been briefly mentioned in a later paragraph instead of putting it as it's own that high in the article.
Overall, I really liked this article. I think it was well written and had a good flow. I feel like this was something that the average reader would like to read and could relate to/with. I could easily follow the article and I liked the variety of sources that were used.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-12-50statesrhodeisland_n.htm
U.N. see new peril in Asia's huge brown cloud
This article was full of information. It seemed to give more information than it explained. It just kept adding more information and didn't really explain what any of it meant. At least, that's how I felt. Any explanations seemed brief and didn't seem to give put the facts at a regular-reader's level. I felt that this was a more scientific article that could have been written so that everyday readers could have followed along.
This article had quotes from many experts. I liked that they got quotes from scientists that actually worked on the study of this brown cloud. I felt like it gave the article a little more credibility by getting the people who are actually doing the research. I think they could have included maybe one quote from a person living in Asia to see if they are seeing any of the effects from the brown cloud. This kind of quote might have added a little something extra to the article.
Overall, I just felt like this article was full of scientific jargon that was not "dumbed down" for regular readers. I could follow some of it, but every time I thought I was understanding a concept, they threw something else at me. It flowed, but it was kind of choppy and not very well planned out.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/environment/2008-11-13-asia-huge-brown-cloud_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
This article had quotes from many experts. I liked that they got quotes from scientists that actually worked on the study of this brown cloud. I felt like it gave the article a little more credibility by getting the people who are actually doing the research. I think they could have included maybe one quote from a person living in Asia to see if they are seeing any of the effects from the brown cloud. This kind of quote might have added a little something extra to the article.
Overall, I just felt like this article was full of scientific jargon that was not "dumbed down" for regular readers. I could follow some of it, but every time I thought I was understanding a concept, they threw something else at me. It flowed, but it was kind of choppy and not very well planned out.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/environment/2008-11-13-asia-huge-brown-cloud_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Sunday, November 9, 2008
2 greenhouse gases on the rise worry scientists
This was a very scientific article but I felt that it was written very well. There were a lot of statistics, but they were explained and I didn't feel lost or confused while I was reading. I liked how each greenhouse gas was explained and how it was/where it came from was explained. It made the reader's job easier, so they didn't have to worry where these gases were coming from.
There were scientific experts quoted in the article to help support the facts that were being reported. They didn't use any sources who were just regular people, but for this article I don't think it was necessary. If the article was about how people felt about finding out about these other two greenhouse gases, then I would have used regular sources, but since the article wasn't about that, I think it was appropriate to use scientists as sources.
I liked the flow of this article. I think it all went together well and the transitions were good. As far as I could tell, there were no holes in this article. I liked that this article was researched and written, because it provided the readers with new information about global warming and greenhouse gases. I'm glad that journalists are finding out new information and providing it to the readers.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-10-24-greenhouse-gases_n.htm
There were scientific experts quoted in the article to help support the facts that were being reported. They didn't use any sources who were just regular people, but for this article I don't think it was necessary. If the article was about how people felt about finding out about these other two greenhouse gases, then I would have used regular sources, but since the article wasn't about that, I think it was appropriate to use scientists as sources.
I liked the flow of this article. I think it all went together well and the transitions were good. As far as I could tell, there were no holes in this article. I liked that this article was researched and written, because it provided the readers with new information about global warming and greenhouse gases. I'm glad that journalists are finding out new information and providing it to the readers.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-10-24-greenhouse-gases_n.htm
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Canada seeks climate pact with USA
When this article first started out, I thought it was going to be an article that was going to outline Canada's plans for a climate pact, but it turns out that this was not the case. The first paragraph was just political information basically and the second paragraph was where I got a little confused. I thought that the U.S. was the country that was not wanting to cooperate, but after reading the second paragraph, I wasn't so sure. I didn't like the way the article was written.
The artcle later went on to give some background information about the relationship between Canada and the U.S, which was appropriate for this article. The article also features quotes from experts, including Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I like that they included him, because he not only is a person of power, but he also has a personal connection to the proposed pact due to his connection to the "oil-rich Alberta."
This article seemed to lack a coherent flow. I just felt like this article was all over the place and that there wasn't really much information about the pact. It seemed to me that all that was talked about was what the pact was not to do to Canada as opposed to what the pact would mean overall to both the U.S. and Canada.
Again, this aricle and the headline didn't really seem to go together. I know that the journalists who write the articles don't always write the headlines, but this one just didn't seem to go together at all. It gave the impression that Canada was the one who wanted to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions (which were only mentioned once I think in the article), but that was not the impression I got when reading the article.
The last paragraph was awkward as well.
"The United States faces major challenges if you're talking about energy security and Canada remains the most important and most secure U.S. source of energy. It's a reality for any president of the United States," he said.
The first sentence was okay; it went along with the article. But the last sentence was random and I don't feel like it should have been included in the article. I think maybe it was supposed to tie the article back to the opening paragraphs, but it just didn't fit. I think the author should have left out that part of the quote because it would still have been effective withougt that part.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-11-06-canada-climate-pact_N.htm
The artcle later went on to give some background information about the relationship between Canada and the U.S, which was appropriate for this article. The article also features quotes from experts, including Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I like that they included him, because he not only is a person of power, but he also has a personal connection to the proposed pact due to his connection to the "oil-rich Alberta."
This article seemed to lack a coherent flow. I just felt like this article was all over the place and that there wasn't really much information about the pact. It seemed to me that all that was talked about was what the pact was not to do to Canada as opposed to what the pact would mean overall to both the U.S. and Canada.
Again, this aricle and the headline didn't really seem to go together. I know that the journalists who write the articles don't always write the headlines, but this one just didn't seem to go together at all. It gave the impression that Canada was the one who wanted to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions (which were only mentioned once I think in the article), but that was not the impression I got when reading the article.
The last paragraph was awkward as well.
"The United States faces major challenges if you're talking about energy security and Canada remains the most important and most secure U.S. source of energy. It's a reality for any president of the United States," he said.
The first sentence was okay; it went along with the article. But the last sentence was random and I don't feel like it should have been included in the article. I think maybe it was supposed to tie the article back to the opening paragraphs, but it just didn't fit. I think the author should have left out that part of the quote because it would still have been effective withougt that part.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-11-06-canada-climate-pact_N.htm
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Trash is turning into key power source for NJ
This was a very interesting article. It began with a scene-setting lead that flows into the story. Quotes were incorporated in the article to make it more than just facts, which was good. Experts were quoted and facts were used appropriately, but not overwhelmingly. The author followed informative sentences with colorful ones that help explain the information. I liked that they included the process of turning the methane gas into electricity, but I might have moved it up in the article instead of putting it at the end.
This article only seemed to provide one side to the issue though. It made me wonder if there were any people opposed to this new way to get energy. Or, were there any people who didn't know this conversion of trash into energy was happening? I know I didn't, so I'm sure that there are others who didn't know either. It would've added to the article to get a quote from someone like this, just so it wouldn't be all the same experts.
I think this article was written in this fun way to show the people that there are other ways to get energy besides wind mills and solar power. To me it seemed like it was turning trash from a gross subject to one that could be used. I liked the style that was used.
I liked that this article ended on a quote. "We're turning them from the juvenile delinquents of the district into productive members of society." This quote let the story end on a colorful note and it summed up what was being done in simple terms.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-10-25-newjersey_N.htm
This article only seemed to provide one side to the issue though. It made me wonder if there were any people opposed to this new way to get energy. Or, were there any people who didn't know this conversion of trash into energy was happening? I know I didn't, so I'm sure that there are others who didn't know either. It would've added to the article to get a quote from someone like this, just so it wouldn't be all the same experts.
I think this article was written in this fun way to show the people that there are other ways to get energy besides wind mills and solar power. To me it seemed like it was turning trash from a gross subject to one that could be used. I liked the style that was used.
I liked that this article ended on a quote. "We're turning them from the juvenile delinquents of the district into productive members of society." This quote let the story end on a colorful note and it summed up what was being done in simple terms.
The story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-10-25-newjersey_N.htm
Saturday, November 1, 2008
EPA curbs factory farm pollution
When I first started reading this article, I thought that this article was going to be pro-environmentalist. After continuing, I found this article did actually provide both sides of this issue. While it was about the EPA's new requirement, it also included a quote from a farmer about how the requirement would impact farmers. The issue I did have with the article was that there was only one quote from a farmer-the ones who are actually going to be impacted by this new regulation.
The author of the story did not seem to push one way or the other on the issue, which is expected since it was an associated press story. The article was informative, but the information was not complicated and the readers could understand what was being said. Some of the information was a bit vague. One term that needed to be defined a bit more in the article was the "zero discharge standard." I wasn't exactly sure what was meant by "zero discharge."
There was one paragraph that seemed awkward in the middle of the story.
"The EPA issued new pollution control requirement on such feedlots in 2003, but that regulation was overturned by the courts two years later. The rules issued Friday, to go into effect next February, are an attempt to meet the court's concerns."
This paragraph didn't say why the earlier requirement had been overturned, which might have added more to why this new requirement was being implemented now. Also, I feel like this paragraph should've been up higher in the article.
I have personal issues with this article because I am from a small, farming town. Environmentalists are complaining about the "huge buildup of manure which is piled up or spread across the land." But what are they supposed to do with they manure? Farmers use it in fields to help the crops grow. I don't see how environmentalists can really find an issue with this though.
This story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-01-epa-feedlot_N.htm
The author of the story did not seem to push one way or the other on the issue, which is expected since it was an associated press story. The article was informative, but the information was not complicated and the readers could understand what was being said. Some of the information was a bit vague. One term that needed to be defined a bit more in the article was the "zero discharge standard." I wasn't exactly sure what was meant by "zero discharge."
There was one paragraph that seemed awkward in the middle of the story.
"The EPA issued new pollution control requirement on such feedlots in 2003, but that regulation was overturned by the courts two years later. The rules issued Friday, to go into effect next February, are an attempt to meet the court's concerns."
This paragraph didn't say why the earlier requirement had been overturned, which might have added more to why this new requirement was being implemented now. Also, I feel like this paragraph should've been up higher in the article.
I have personal issues with this article because I am from a small, farming town. Environmentalists are complaining about the "huge buildup of manure which is piled up or spread across the land." But what are they supposed to do with they manure? Farmers use it in fields to help the crops grow. I don't see how environmentalists can really find an issue with this though.
This story can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-01-epa-feedlot_N.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)