Clinton Article Critique Revision - RF090116

Ryan Fischer

The New York Times Article titled “Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email” starts in with a hard news lede that gives the reader a solid foundation, but from there inconsistencies start to come up at paragraph two. Some of the sources seem muddled here as they are introduced: the quote “hundreds of potentially classified emails” seems to derive from nowhere in particular, with three possible identities to attribute the quote to. The quote doesn’t do anything than ponder on the potential of evidence. The ideas are framed such that they would lead the reader to believe that Clinton’s accusers are valid as well.

The reporter’s transparency runs thin at several points when he defers to anonymous or semi-anonymous sources exchanging documents with the reporters or being indirectly quoted. This happens on three occasions as the article concludes, using three paragraphs of paraphrased material from a person or group identified as “State Department officials.” Although they reflect the ideas of the state department as a general whole, no source is given from which the information is derived.

Readers are presented with some material that should be questioned for veracity outright. The reporters said that “at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information,” which is affirmative of Clinton’s supposed guilt. Although the reporters go on to detail that the emails were not identified within the memo they do not debate or bring any counterpoint. Rather, the reporters try to support the veracity of the statement with “The memos were provided to The New York Times by a senior government official,” generating another loose string with little to follow.

The overall tone of the article is accusatory, when the reader should come off with an impression of inquiry. It doesn’t objectively reflect the state of the email scandal at this time. Clinton and her side were present in the article, however the balance comes entirely in the form of quotes from the accused. Logically, people are weary of placing belief in the defendant over the plaintiff.

In terms of depth the article fails short because it’s focus is too honed on accusing Clinton rather than questioning the ramifications of placing trust in her. A more politically charged article could distract the reader from the emphasis, Clinton’s guilt, and cause the audience to make up their minds ahead of time based on their own bias. In reality the article brings forth bigger ideas to be explored, like the transparency of the nation’s next president and the meaning of classified information, but it doesn’t go on to question these ideas. This works objectively, but it doesn’t reflect the reality and timing of this article as accurately as it could. 

Clinton Article Critique - Fischer 083016

Ryan Fischer 

The article begins with a hard news lede that gives the reader a solid foundation, but from then inconsistencies start to come up at paragraph two. Some of the sources seem muddled here as they are introduced: the quote “hundreds of potentially classified emails” seems to derive from nowhere in particular, with three possible identities to attribute the quote to.  Does the quote do anything than ponder on the potential of evidence? The ideas are framed such that they would lead the reader to believe that Clinton’s accusers are valid and have veracity.

The article runs thin when it comes to transparency, which at several points defer to anonymous or semi-anonymous sources exchanging documents with the reporter or being indirectly quoted by the reporter. This happens on three occasions as the article concludes, using three paragraphs of paraphrased material from a person or group identified as “State Department officials.” Although they reflect the ideas of the state department as a general whole, no source is really given from which the information is derived.

The article also presents the reader with some material that should be questioned for veracity outright. The reporter said that “at least one email made public by the State Department contained classified information,” which is entirely affirmative of Clinton’s supposed guilt. Although the reporter goes on to detail that the emails were not identified within the memo, it doesn’t debate or bring any counterpoint. Rather, the reporter seemingly tries to support the veracity of the statement with “The memos were provided to The New York Times by a senior government official,” generating another loose string with little to follow.

The overall tone of the article is accusatory, when the reader should come off with an impression of inquiry. It doesn’t objectively reflect the state of the email scandal at this time. Clinton and her side were presented, however this was done entirely in the form of quotes from the accused. Logically, people are weary of placing belief in the defendant over the plaintiff. Objectively, news organizations should do their best to present two sides of an issue, and this article fails to establish this.

In terms of depth the article fails short because it’s focus is too honed on accusing Clinton rather than questioning the ramifications of placing trust in her. A more politically charged article could distract the reader from the emphasis, Clinton’s guilt, and cause the audience to make up their minds ahead of time based on their own bias. In reality the article brings forth resonating ideas to be explored, like the transparency of the nation’s next president and the meaning of classified information, but it doesn’t really go on to question these ideas. This works objectively, but it doesn’t reflect the reality and timing of this article as the next election approaches.  

Michael Brown Article Critique : RFischer 082516

Article Critique: “Michael Brown Spent Last Weeks Grappling With Problems and Promise”

The first thing that is objectively questionable about the article lies in its anecdotal lead, which at first leaves a misleadingly positive impression to be countered by the point “[Michael Brown] was no angel.” I think this sets the whole article up to function in a similar fashion, where a positive point about Brown and his choices is used to lead up to or conclude upon a negative counterpoint. Were this point not in the lede, the article may not reflect that same scheme so vividly. The power and buildup of the anecdote climaxes with that loaded phrase, and it leaves a big impression.

One place where this idea comes back around is when talking about the content of the rap music he produced (including a quote from Brown which states “My favorite part is when the bodies hit the ground,”), which introduces the idea of controversy before moving into the fact that his lyrics often condemned fathers who don’t pay child support. It seems like an attempt to be objective and fair, but leaves us with points too negative to be outweighed by the positive.

Objective perspective should also be brought into question due to the high amount of presumption that goes beyond the five senses. The author makes many generalizations that leave the reader to wonder how the information was really discerned. A prominent point on this error is when the author assumes that Michael Brown was a handful, which is supported by the factual information that follows. Making these kinds of assumptions concludes the audience’s inference for them before the information has been received or evaluated by the reader, leaving them with only the author’s opinion to start forming their own judgments from.

Other attribution issues occur when the author talks about Brown’s “early struggles in school,” or when he mentions that “[Brown] regularly flashed a broad smile.” These seem to be memories recanted to the author after hearing the family or reviewing some gathered material, however the audience doesn’t have a real thread to follow. In the same paragraph, the author can’t know that Brown’s parent’s “hoped” without attributing attributing the idea to them. Unless the entire paragraph can be considered attributed through the phrase “his parents hoped,” then it is entirely without attribution. If it is considered the attribution, then it is improper since the paragraph doesn’t contain the word “said” at any point.

Overall, the article is good as an example of flow and literary accuracy, however it falls short when it comes to creating an objective profile piece that gives the reader little room to make assumptions about the content and the subject of the article. I believe it would be easy to walk away from this piece with a bad taste in one’s mouth for Michael Brown, when the ideas presented here should give a more balanced view of an incredibly sensitive matter. Profiles don’t have to be positive and should not be, but fairness is easy to infringe upon in open court cases, even in individualized profiles.