I am a Professional Writing major, Women's and Gender Studies minor, at Eastern Michigan University. I have written for my high school newspaper/yearbook, during which time I wrote stories covering: the theater programs performed at the school, the religious controversy following the release of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, the Women's movement and struggle for suffrage (a review of history during Women's Month, and how it will affect the future), and the graduation of my class, as well as others. Most recently, I wrote stories covering events at EMU.
This is feature story, rather than a hard news story. It details the people's thoughts, and uses bias details. Feature stories aren't bad, but I don't think they belong in the same space as hard news stories; they simply cannot be judged by the same criteria. Aside from that large issue... The writing is disjointed and confusing. The writer jumps around too much, and without good transition.
The story needs to be better sourced. I have no idea where the majority of the facts came from. In addition, I was put off by the placement of the links and pictures. It seems disconnected from the story, as if they were inserted at random. It also disrupts the fluidity of the story itself.
Fairly well-written. Nothing stands out as phenomenal, but at least it's not standing out negatively either.
I found this story, for the most part, to be a good piece of journalism. Although, I do believe it's improper to say "Mr. Obama".
This article feels incomplete, and it certainly doesn't capture my attention. It feels like someone is reading off a few quotes, and including some minor background. I feel even with the limited content, that if the article was better written I would have appreciated it more.
I don't think this article contributes that much to the world. This content could have been received by watching the CBS interview; this story is just reiterating that information.
The format in which the article is written, as well as the dry way it reads, make this story unappealing. It is redeemed by its content, which is in-depth and which many people would want to know.
It's objective, in-depth, and its information is relevant. It is extremely well-sourced; I am disappointed the majority of the article is quotations, since that makes it seem a little disjointed, but overall it's good.
There seems to be way too many sources that are opposed to the scanners and that 'enhanced' pat-downs. It creates a bias article. On the bright side, it is very informative and addresses an issue that is currently very prevalent in the minds of American citizens.
The article is well-written, and remains mostly objective. However, the word choice reveals a bias. Phrases like "...a stubborn one in five..." or "Armed with new powers..." reveal what might be a bias against smoking.
The story was written fairly well, and remained objective. It is a bit short, but since the dialogue surrounding the election (and the consequences that follow) is still ongoing, I can accept that. I was not impressed by the sourcing. The only cited source was President Obama, and the only quotes included were from the live presidential conference. I'd like to know who else is behind the information. I'd like to hear more than reiteration of the conference I just watched.
This is an interesting topic, one I doubt I would have heard about had the NY Times not reported it. It is well-written, and objective, and relevant to many people who live near foreclosed houses or who are affected by property law.
The majority of the article provides information without sources, and the writing style feels choppy and dull. I feel like I'm missing something, like there's more that could have been done. Overall, I'm disappointed.
I like everything about this article, except the style in which it was written. It read dry, boring. I was interested in the content, but had to fight to get past the technique. I dislike the way the paragraphs are broken up, the lack of good transitions, and the absence of interest this article seems to perpetuate.
This seems like an opinion piece to me; it's hiding a lot of bias, and hiding it poorly. Some the sources were 'on the record', but others were 'on background'. A lot of the information included seems 'off the record' too, since the authors seem to be pulling information out of thin air at times. I'm not a fan at all.
I liked this article. It is well-written and presents a new method of getting the nation to conserve energy. However, it did seem that the author was in favor of the program and its leaders. It may be a bit biased, as there is no source against the program.
I think the story was covered fairly well. Like a lot of political campaigning, we cannot be sure what is true; opponents often lie about each other to get ahead. So while I do not know that this is 100% the truth, I called it factual since the reporter stated the facts as given.
I like how in depth the author went, even without further information since the ruling hasn't occurred. It's fair and factual; and since there are several states with statutes like California's (with many people bound to disagree), I'd say it's very relevant.
I like that they took the initiative to report this. Not many people realize that if all the bees die, humanity could have some serious problems. Whether we know it or not, we need bees. However, when reading the article, I felt a bit confused. It seems like the author jumps all over the place. It's disconnected. Also, it seems like the author is in agreement with the military/scientists; you don't really receive any information from other possible causes, or anyone who disagrees.
I like to buy green products, and so am very glad that there will be stricter guidelines regarding who can claim to be green. I liked this piece especially since it provided information I was unaware of.
This was definitely relevant to me. I'm Lutheran, which falls under the Protestant scope of Christianity. However, I believe it should be relevant to anyone who claims to be religious. It's ridiculous to think that people are living their lives according to traditions and beliefs that they do not even know about. The article includes facts, sources, and provides testimony from both sides of the argument (whether this lack of knowledge reveals a shallow faith). I'd like to add that I received a 28 out of 32.
I learned a lot from this article, and found it to be relevant. It is well-written and fairly unbiased.
This article provides a nice follow-up to a dramatic (and very relevant) event in US history. It's unbiased, provides many facts, and is written in a very informative manner. I don't think they cited their sources well enough, though.
I think that the topic is definitely relevant. Of course, people what to know if they are being tracked or spied on. I know I bristled. I think Cohen's writes well, and makes the story fluid and easy-to-read. However, he makes it difficult to track the sources. If I want to check, for instance, what federal appeals court ruled that the government sometimes needs search warrants, I have to some legwork myself. It is the same for most of his source citations within the article. He also shows a definite bias towards the way the laws should read.
