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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The organization of this piece was quite poor in my opinion. It was so difficult to follow. I felt like it was speaking about something important and essential, yet the fact that I couldn't follow the story so well resulted in me being frustrated and rather confused.
I felt they were trying to get so much information out that they forgot to piece it all together to make a picture that made sense.
I couldn't see past it to be quite honest. Megan, you're right, i think this article lacked a serious coherent flow.
About that last quote: was it just me, or if it had been punctuated differently would it have made more sense? Just wondering.
I must disagree. I thought the article flowed fine. The headline, however, was slightly misleading. It should have focused on Stephen Harper and his party questioning the president-elect’s energy policy. Nevertheless, I thought the article adequately explained the fears harbored by the Conservative Party of Canada. It may be slightly odd seeing the Canadian government taking the “conservative stance” on an issue and the American government taking the “liberal stance.” I think that might throw off readers, not the flow.
Post a Comment