I felt this was an excellent piece of writing; it not only serves to inform people on today's political climate, but provides a totally reasonable argument that simultaneously promotes a non-partisan look at immigration reform and explores a the merits of a particular political strategy being considered by the democratic party. This story promotes positive social capital in the way it will cause democrats to reflect on this strategy; yet at the same time an article like this has the potential to dissuade voters from supporting Obama's attempts at immigration reform - in this way it is somewhat of a double-edged sword.

I felt this was a modestly successful story; stories like this seem especially significant near elections, since anything Obama says is going to have at least some impact on public opinion. Thus, I feel this story promotes positive social capital, since it will likely lead some latino voters to reconsider their position on Obama and the political system in a whole, perhaps leading them to vote (political participation.)

The article indicates that this has been a year of record deportations, but doesn't bother providing any information as to the specifics (fault lines) of the immigrants sent away; it could have been useful to know the general age, ethnicity, or even where they lived when they were deported. These are all things that could have helped contextualize the story, and could have endlessly improved the article's insightfulness.

My biggest gripe with this story (and the study it describes) is that it makes no distinction between any of the various ethnicities that are considered "hispanic." This kind of separation is highly important in a study of this nature since Mexicans (who represent the majority of hispanic illegal immigrants) would likely have a much different opinion on the matter than someone from a country like Spain.

The story was framed around the opinions of several different public figures regarding immigration. The piece was informative in that it loosely described their thoughts on the matter (as well as the authors,) but it was not terribly insightful nor enterprising; the author instead opted to simply combine 3 stories into one. This would work if the story was not so short: the author goes into almost no detail surrounding the positions of these people, providing only a couple quotes and making no effort to put the situation into a broader context.

The story was framed around the education institution, and was largely about what the schools do and do not support. Near the end they also mentioned how the situation will effect local Georgian politics. This kind of frame is appropriate since a personal approach (interviewing an illegal immigrant who got kicked out of school) might lead to a bias; Focussing to much on local politics could also distract from the meat of the issue.The way it was handled does a better job of achieving relative objectivity.

a. The story did little more than present a number of statements rep. Frank made, providing little outside insight or opposing opinions. The article also made little attempt to put the war in any sort of socio political context. b. The article didn't really provide much insight on the war, instead opting to simply present one individual's opinion. c. I had little interest in what Barney Frank had to say about the war, so no. d. The opinions of someone this significant may reignite discussions on the matter, but will doubtfully achieve much. e. There was no racial / cultural element.

a. Not at all. It's obvious that we're consuming more than we should, but the writer provides no insight as to what we are consuming too much of or specifically how we can fix the problem; he instead dumbs it down to "simple physics." b. While the author did cite a couple of moderately significant sources, he didn't offer any new or compelling commentary on the specifics of the situation, yet mocks anyone who would argue against him. c. The article neither confirmed nor raised any of my questions on the matter; I found everything he had to say quite obvious. d.Once again, not in the slightest. There are already hundreds upon hundreds of nearly identical opinion pieces floating around the internet, and this one provides ... More »