Tuesday, October 26, 2010
HW for 10/26
Click on the link below and read the article. Like yesterday's hw, this piece is part of the investigative series that The Washington Post is doing on guns. What do you find interesting about this article? Why do you think they are doing such a report? Do you think these sort of investigations make a difference? Given what we've talked about this session (regarding the role of journalism in our culture and society), support your answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have no idea why this article was written, aside from feeding the public an interest story. This article, much like the last one, is not, in my eyes, productive. I think that the article does nothing but complain about the limitations of local law enforcement, point fingers at the federal government, and dishonor gun sales people. The article does not, thankfully, make any direct judgement but, rather, attempts to bias the reader in their favour. I understand that this is to be expected but I find it distasteful to see it so blatantly represented in an supposedly unbiased source. I don't think that these types of investigations make much of a difference at all, unless they serve as a useful tool for politicians. In that case, they may become well-publicized and famous. What I find interesting about this article is the fact that the author(s) completely disregard the efforts they admit gun sales-people are expending on minimizing illegal gun use. The author(s) make it seem as though the owners/sales people are only interested in money, and have no regard for the way the guns are used in society. This is, clearly, not the majority. Generalizations, in my opinion, should have no place in conventional media.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the article was really good, i also thought it was better then the first one we talked about. I would have to agree with David about how the article does not, thankfully, make any direct judgement but, rather, attempts to bias the reader in their favour. I have a hard time understanding why people do things like that to other people. Why make them feel really bad? There are so many questions in my head and I can not answer. I think that the article had good parts and bad parts.
ReplyDeleteI agree in part with David when he said that the Washington Post is not being objective. The article is so convenient for politicians because if they want to pass a law against gun rights; people will support politicians because people will be brain wash. The Washington Post was trying to convince people that guns are horrible and that it’s difficult to track guns from criminals and use it against them in a court.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Post has point in saying that guns are dangerous and it’s a complicated issue. I think that in the court of law, prosecutors should use the tracking guns document against the person who is being charge if he doesn’t have anything to hide. Including, some people are buying guns for other people and most of them are teens. This article is interesting and it’s good to be informed about guns, but I think I would like to know more about gun laws.
I would have to agree with Dasha. The article was good, and it was pointless. I think that the first article had more interesting points to it. The other article gave more color while this one gave more gray. Then I also have to say the Washington post, I think, was showing how dangerous gun can be and also the consequences it has. But, there are two sides to this argument about guns. One side would say guns are ok for time of need. Then there is the side that says, guns are just to plain dangerous to have. I have to say that this article could raise a lot of peoples attentions of the pros and cons of guns.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joselyn and David. The article is not objective. I do think that the article is very convenient for politicians to be able to put new gun laws in place. This article is written to inform the public about guns and how people are getting their hands on weapons. Young people are also getting their hands on weapons by adults buying these weapons for the teenagers. This article was written to inform the public about young people being in possession of firearms. I am not sure whether reporting these issues is going to make a difference. it might make a small difference but people are still going to do what they want. its just in our human nature.
ReplyDeleteYea i agree with everybody else, i think this information was poitless, its repeating every other gun story that we have heard before. We already kow the dangerous use of guns and what negative things people can do with them. I think this is just one of those news articles that are meant as a scare tactic for the people. I dont ujnderstand this article at all, and ireally didint want to read it because it was something that i already know, and i dont really want to hear about crazy people killing innocent people. Everything i wrote in the last article we did is basically what i feel in this article, their really the same
ReplyDeleteeverybody is correct! There is no point in telling us stuff that we already know. If their going to do something about it they need to do it now because the more they wait the more people die. Actions speak louder than words. too me if they are just going to tell me about whats happening and not tell me what they are going to do about it i rather not read it. yeah its great to get peoples different opinions on this subject but is it really doing the public any good? just a waist of time.This is just shameful
ReplyDeletethis article is basically the same as the first one. i agree with Kevin for this reason. i also sympathize with Jenifur's statement regarding action. i think that writing about all this is basically reporting, in a single article, upon countless debates without moving the public at all. the fact that the article is supposedly unbiased makes it even worse, since the only way (in my opinion) to make a decent article out of this subject is to pick a side. this article, on the other hand, was written by somebody who clearly has no interest whatsoever in going one way or the other. maybe that's why i'm a better feature writer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jennifer and Kevin. Simply because this article is just telling us information that we already know. They should inform the public about what they are doing to prevent this kind of unlawful activity from happening. Not just report what is going on. I don't really think that telling us that one store is closed makes much of a difference because the other stores are still open. The authorites should find a way to monitor wether the guns are about to be sold to teens so that way they could catch them in the act. I don't like these types of stories because I would rather hear about positive things that teens and other people are doing not mean spirited and devistating things.
ReplyDelete