After reading the Billings Gazette, I found some relief in an article entitled "70 victims of human trafficking have been found in area in past 18 months, organization says." Though a wordy title, it instantaneously captures the reader's attention and stimulates enough curiosity to want to read more. Despite the capitalization mistake in the first sentence, it provides an excellent introduction/lead. It immediately presents evocative statistics and facts that make it difficult to ignore, serving the purpose of informing readers. The lead informs who, what, and where but leaves room for much more questioning.
In my opinion, the author of the article does well with presenting more important information towards the beginning and less interesting facts towards the end, and overall, it seemed well-organized. The various methods used for the integration of quotes allows for sentences that flow naturally. Unlike the previous article I read, the article consists of well-placed references that enhance the piece as a whole rather than over-bearing it. However, it does become slightly repetitive towards the end of the article as a quote followed by "Fox said" is the format for three paragraphs/sentences in a row. As for biases or prejudices, the article evidently discourages such activities. "Conference presenters will discuss the trafficking problem, highlight efforts to combat traffickers and identify resources available to help and protect children and adults from traffickers," demonstrates this as words with negative connotation towards sex-trafficking are used (problem, combat, etc.). However, the article focuses primarily on the facts, and it would be rather appalling to have a bias towards the opposition. Even neutrality could be seen as apathy. In conclusion, this article was the best of the three I read. It was crafted well in organization and clarity, provided poignant facts, and informed the audience of an incredibly newsworthy topic.
0 Comments
Whilst thinking of an old town I used to live in, I decided to search for a news article in the Alliance Times Herald to see the quality. One particular article immediately sparked my interest as its title, "Miss Alliance Writes about Mental Illness in Children's Book," highlighted an evocative subject and related it to the small community in the panhandle of Nebraska.
The subject of the article caused me to look forward to a compelling and informative article. Unfortunately, as I progressively read it, I increasingly became disappointed. Though the information was pertinent and interesting, the way in which it was conveyed was fairly anti-climatic. Sentences were sloppily strewed together in a seemingly rushed way and contained grammatical and formality errors (i.e. the lack of commas, the usage of parentheses instead of brackets in a quote, and the presence of mom instead of mother). None of the sentences flow, consisting of choppy and almost irrelevant points, and the integration of quotes is incredibly messy. For example, "Concerning people, especially children with mental illness, she told a group of fourth graders,'(They) need a little help learning, people to guide them in different ways. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be friends with them,'" provides vague interpretation and poor choice in quotes. Considering that the author amended her previous statement, though incorrectly, it surprises me that he wouldn't have inserted 'it' in brackets before her next statement. Other quotes prove to be lengthy where paraphrasing could have been beneficial and more effective. It seemed that the author was attempting to meet a deadline, and in order to reach a desired word count, he carelessly plopped the longest, most cohesive quotes he could find. Furthermore, he created a plethora of confusion as he switched tenses, especially regarding the publication of the young woman's book; at one point he used "published" and at another he spoke of her mother "is" receiving it first. Overall, the article was disorienting and disappointing. It was an excellent topic that deserved more care. In general, Dove Cameron is a well rounded actress and singer, and now dancer! She blew the audience away with her strong vocals, her pretty and unique voice, and her dynamic range, adding an abundance of Amber Von Tussle's personality into it. I only regret not getting to see more of her. She did her arrogant, ostentatious character justice with her undeniably good acting and her nuanced mannerisms. It was more than enjoyable to watch her on stage, and she assimilated into theater acting quite well. Of course, Jennifer Hudson and Kristen Chenoworth were brilliant, amusing, and powerful with their performances, gripping the audience.
Ariana Grande, on the other hand, was good, but not powerful. She is an amazing artist with good vocal skills, but her voice lacked the power needed for theater, in my opinion. Some explained her lack of power due to her character and technical difficulties. I would contest those claims with pointing out that many others experienced the same difficulties but managed to broadcast their voices rather clearly and distinctly, and that after the show, Hudson and Grande performed once more which was clearly an appropriate time for Grande to be a show-stopper, but she fell short alongside the powerful Hudson (not to mention when she came out as a Checkerboard Chick, meant to emphasize her newfound confidence, yet she still didn't blow me away). Furthermore, Grande's acting skills were less than what I expected. Though she provided comic relief and played the mousy girl well, I felt that she brought much of her old Nickelodeon character into this one, showing no dynamic growth. Ultimately, however, I loved the show and have a new respect for it. In regards to Dove Cameron, I am incredibly excited for her breakout role. She has been in Disney Channel movies as well, including Cloud 9 and Descendants, along with starring as the main character in the Disney show Liv and Maddie. To be perfectly honest, I watched Cloud 9 as a kid because of the snowboarding, but I loved her acting skills and singing. From then, I was hooked. In our society today, people have no reserves on complaining about the smallest things. Everything is deemed offensive. Ten years ago, people would have taken comments with a grain of salt. Today, you cannot speak your mind without risking backlash for it. In my opinion, it goes both ways. If someone says something and someone expresses a different opinion about it, that is their right as a U.S. citizen. People are overwhelmed by the sense of saying something wrong, or more so, saying something that is taken out of context.
Additionally, as children, we are handing things to children without giving them the true satisfaction of earning it. We get participation awards for silly things. Perhaps the intention is to make everyone feel equal and good inside, but there is most certainly a point where it pushes past the boundaries of empathy. Losing is just as important as winning. Without losing, we would not know how to handle failures, an inevitable part of life. Instead, we have created a bratty generation that feels they should win for showing up. Congratulations, but no one could care less if you came to the event or not. Not only are we holding kids back from creating a strong work ethic and building perseverance, but we are shaping their future perceptions of life in a detramental way. Continuing with shaping children's perspectives, we astonishingly encourage our younger generation to be lazy. When I was a child, I played outside every day, and there wasn't even a choice as my mother locked the porch door. If I was unable to, I played with toys that enhanced my learning or stimulated my mind with creativity. Nowadays, kids whine and stomp their feet around until they get their parents' phones or get to play video games. I can think of an instance where a three year old played X-Box all day and continues to do so as he is four. He cannot spell his own name. Furthermore, the video games and phone games that parents allow their kids to play is astonishing. Perhaps they don't comprehend the context of killing people violently, but that supports the horrors of it itself. We are essentially training kids to not feel bad when they kill. In a real life situation, the repeated goal of killing someone could send a person into desensitation-overdrive, nurturing psychopathic behaviors. It is tolerable for a young adult to play such games only with the knowlege of how impactful the taking of a life is, and not just on themselves. It is still questionable as video games such as Call of Duty promote war and glorify it, excluding a true soldier's perspective on war. More than likely, they didn't join the military to get an epic kill. Out of curiosity, I searched for poorly written articles to see if I could pick out why they have been deemed with such a negative connotation. I read one in particular that made me cringe. ABC News produced an article on January 29th of 2012 addressing the investigation of a woman's death by strangulation and named the husband as a person of interest. Immediately, the unclear antecedents in the first sentence made it seem as if the murdered woman was the main suspect in her death. The article lacked proper transitions and did not flow. Instead, choppy, garbled sentences made it rather unenjoyable to read and even worse to listen to.
Let's view an example. "Police investigators from Detroit, where Jane Bashara's body was found, and Grosse Point Park, where she and her husband lived, are collaborating on the investigation and searched the family's home Friday night, seizing computer hard drives, taking photographs and leading search dogs through to sniff for evidence." The sentence is riddled with poorly placed facts and almost leaves a sour taste in one's mouth as it is read. It is in dire need of being broken up to form a sensible, comprehendible sentence. For instance, it could have read, "Police investigators from Detroit and Grosse Pointe Park collaborated on the investigation and searched the family's home Friday night to further their insight on the matter. They seized computer hard drives, took keen photographs, and lead search dogs through to sniff for evidence." This gives it a more active voice as opposed to the passive voice prior to the edit. The information on the crime scene sight and where the couple's home did not belong in the sentence and belonged in another separate sentence in a preliminary paragraph. The following sentences are no better as the syntax is awkward, and facts that have no relation to each other are jumbled into one sentence. An example would include the very frustrating sentence about the husband having an SUV license plate that reads "Big Bobb" and a "logical" leap to how he is involved in charities. Overall, the article has no sense of sequential order, no necessary transitions into separate topics, and no consistency whatsoever. There were many other errors as well, but the article was so terrible that editing and critiquing it proved difficult. Never have I read something more redundant, sporadic, or befuddling as this article. I believe it is safe to say that it is the equivalent writing level of a sophomore in high school, and that is generous. Several other people took to the comments to reveal their opinions on the piece and how egrigious some of the errors were, such as the misspelled city of Grosse Pointe Park. Elections are just around the corner. Campaigns launch themselves into the public, the lies and scandals pile up, and many Americans are left feeling helpless. Despite the feeling of futility and resentment towards our candidates, it is vital for America that we take voting serious. There are many factors between both parties to consider.
Donald Trump is, in my opinion, an idiot. He wouldn't be able to suppress his opinion if someone gorilla glued his mouth shut. While it is admirable in some accounts to be fearless in saying what needs to be said, it is inappropriate and crude in other situations. It stimulates fear of him causing another war due to his lack of negotiation skills. Furthermore, it seems rather idealistic to expect Mexicans to build a wall to block their people from coming into our country. Though it is true that illegal immigrants have cost us jobs and money, our previous administrations were only conducive in these efforts. Trump should come to terms with the fact that our government has let them in, so it wouldn't make sense for him to put all the blame on Mexico. It was past actions (or lack of) that allowed them into our country, so the most we should do is correct it. Hillary Clinton has consistently lied throughout her entire political tenure, saying she supports gay rights when she had previously and firmly stated she did not support such things. She has done countless other acts to prove her reputation of lying. With Clinton as our president, we would have a controlling manipulator as opposed to an offensive moron. It is mortifying what she did to our soldiers in Benghazi. She is a murderer, and she should have never had the opportunity to even run for election. Furthermore, she is beckoning refugees to come to America without having background checks or anything. Hillary Clinton is not that stupid, so she must foresee the negative effects that will come with them. Though I think it is terrible what innocent families have had to endure in Syria, we cannot haphazardly let them in without discovering their intentions for our own safety. Instead, they should go through the process like everyone else, but perhaps be prioritized in order to get innocents to safety, yet keep dangers out. If I were to vote, I'd vote for neither. I would strongly encourage others to vote for the independent party before choosing our next leader based off of keeping a party out of office. A lot of citizens will not even consider the independent party. Unfortunately, our independent is horrifically stupid, unable to even name one world leader (i.e. Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un). Voting should not be about parties, but instead, the person themselves. Our elections have become corrupt, and we could be falling towards the dark days of no freedom whatsoever. Perhaps we should find a new way to enforce balance in our government and ensure that one party does not have absolute control for four to eight years. If we do not figure out something fast, our country is in danger of falling. |
AuthorMy name is Shayla, and I am a senior in high school. I enjoy traveling, sports, and writing. Archives
May 2017
Categories |