Palin investigation can proceed, Alaska high court rules-CNN
I'm sure most of you have heard of the ongoing investigation regarding Sarah Palin's July firing of Walt Monegan, her ex-public safety comissioner who: "resisted pressure to fire the governor's ex-brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten" (CNN). According to this CNN article, the investigation has recently been challenged, by "Allies of Palin" (CNN) who believed the investigation is a "Democratic-led witch hunt and that the state Personnel Board should instead lead the inquiry" (CNN). Alaska's Supreme Court has ruled that the investigation can continue as originally planned.
As far as the article went, I originally found it a little awkward (and let me clarify in what ways, because I believe my commentary was misunderstood by whoever commented on my original post, not because of its set up because I agree, its pretty much a classic, to the point article, but because of the word choice. My first complaint is actually gone now because CNN have edited the article and I actually like it better now. Originally some consecutive paragraphs used almost the exact same phrasing and words and it got to be very halty and choppy).
So anyways, on to my other points :) One thing I wish the author would have done, and maybe I'm just being too picky, was clarify the meaning of the word "subpoena" with a subtle, imbedded working definiton. I know this article is in the politics section and the author can reasonably assume that their audience can atleast follow the idea of the story, and will most likely have [i]some[/i] background knowledge of the situation in general. However, think of how simple it would have been to give the legal definition of that one word so that people like me (I admit I am not that up-to-date of legal terminology) could follow without having to go to dictionary.com and type in said word. "Subpoena" is not a word used in everyday conversation and it is reasonable (in my opinion) for some not to know its exact meaning. But maybe I'm just biased :P Originally, [until I was aware that it was a specific legal term] I would have also suggested that the author found a synonym or a different way to say what they meant, instead of repeating the word as it gets very redundant and tiring to read the same word over and over again after awhile. However, as it is a proper legal term I can see where this would not be possible.
I also think that the author could have included a few quotes from people who are not in support of Palin's innocence. The author's use of quotes solely (apart from one official statement by a state senator regarding whether or not the investigation will continue) from Palin supporters (including her husband) makes the article seem a little biased and one-sided. Though the author never implies intentional bias in the narrative, because there are no quotes from the people involved in the accusation, the article is biased. Simply put, there is no chance for the other side to have their say in their own words.
The end of the article, regarding Ted Palin's involvement in the Alaskan administration, though very slightly out of place, was actually good information to put at the end as it answered another question readers may have had about the whole situation. Leaving it to the end was key, that way people reading the article specifically for the information mentioned in the headline would get their information before they tired of reading the article. This is a classic news strategy of leaving the least important details for the end of the article so that readers (most don't read all the way through an article) will get the whole picture of the situation.
Over all though, it was a good news article, very informative and to the point.
Article:http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/palin.investigation/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
[I know it's not done but I'm commenting anyways.]
I don't think it was so much awkward as it was just a standard article. Stright up facts, this happened, that happened, throw in a few quotes. I don't see anything too far out there from a this-is-whats-going-on article.
Regarding the investigation, I don't think the Democratic party should be trying to dig up dirt on Palin right now. With less than a month before Election Day, one thing Obama doesn't want associated with him is negative campaigning. In fact, just last night in the debate, Obama talked about how proud he was that this WASN'T one of his campaign tactics. He needs to stick to his word on this one, especially if he wants to be contrasted from McCain, whose only strategy seems to be running negative ads.
It may also be unnecessary. In the past few weeks, Palin's been in the spotlight a lot for unflattering reasons- Katie Couric interview anyone? To me, it seems like Palin does a pretty good job of getting bad press without help from the Democratic party.
One thing to keep in mind with this article is that it was deliberately written for the web. Unlike the NY Times who also publish in print, CNN is purely media. Online news readers read differently than those who read newspapers. (Perhaps this explains the initial choppiness before the edit.) Online readers tend to scan the article looking for "quick news." They're much more interested in finding out the basics about what happened and they are more apt to skim and scan. In terms of the word "subpoena," I really didn't take issue with it. There is no other synonym to replace it with. Hopefully most readers have an idea of the definition. To define it mid-paragraph would probably detract from the article. Most important however, is the mention of balance within the context of the article. I didn't notice a large problem with this. The article presents the accusations regarding Palin and her action and then it also presents Palin's response and the response of Republicans. The article mentioned both Palin's version of the story and Monegan's. The true bias comes with how the article was concluded. Rather than ending on a neutral point, as most news articles do, this article ended on an accusation made by Todd Palin that his wife is being held to a double standard. This can leave the reader believing that notion and agreeing with the Palins, rather than giving the reader the tools to formulate their own ideas.
Post a Comment